Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 27 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Boot Camps

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding his plans for boot camps for young offenders. [18354]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I have received one request in this House to consider introducing a pilot scheme on the lines of American boot camps, and a question about studies on boot camps. In addition, I have received a small number of letters from members of the public recording their views for and against the introduction of boot camps.

Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what most people want for young offenders in this country is not only rehabilitation but appropriate punishment that acts as a deterrent? Will he look at a scheme operated by the Airport Initiative in West Linton in Scotland, which is handled by former special forces people—former marines and paratroopers—and has a 100 per cent. record in ensuring that those who successfully complete the course do not reoffend?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is closely examining the scheme to which my hon. Friend referred. I agree that it shows signs of being a promising development in the treatment of young offenders.

Mr. George Howarth: Will the Home Secretary confirm that last year he commissioned a report on the operation of boot camps in the United States at a cost of £16,000? Will he further confirm that the conclusions of that report were, first, that there would be no appreciable cost savings from boot camps, and secondly, that the rate of re-offending in the American experience was not

appreciably different from that of any other form of punishment? Is that not just another example of the Home Secretary talking tough but acting ineffectively?

Mr. Howard: No, it is certainly not. It is not surprising to anyone on the Government Benches that any mention of discipline for young offenders has those on the Opposition Benches running a mile, as we have just seen.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the boot camps in the United States combine training, discipline, respect for others, anger management and respect for families and are voluntary, and that that kind of treatment might well benefit certain targeted offenders in this country?

Mr. Howard: I am prepared to learn lessons wherever we can to provide the most effective regime for young offenders. If we can borrow from the best in the United States and add it to the best that we have in this country, I am certainly prepared to do that.

Drug-related Crime

Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the total value of property stolen in 1994 to finance drug addiction. [18355]

Mr. Howard: The involvement of drug misusers in criminal activity is difficult to quantify. It has not been possible so far to estimate with any precision the amount of crime that is drug related.

Mr. Byers: Is the Home Secretary aware that it costs a heroin addict some £30,000 a year to finance the habit? Does he agree with the Home Affairs Select Committee that there is a clear connection between drug misuse and the committing of crimes to fund such abuse? In the light of those facts, does he accept that the Government were simply wrong to cease the funding of residential treatment for drug addicts and to stop the funding of drug advisers in our schools?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is considerably out of date. He should be aware that we are funding programmes to bring home to our schoolchildren the evils of drug misuse. We are in fact spending about £500 million a year on tackling drugs. The Home Office drugs prevention initiative has been renewed and extended from 1 April 1995 and the Government as a whole will shortly publish a White Paper which will set out our co-ordinated overall strategy for tackling drug misuse at all levels and in all ways.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, given the clear link that there is between drug misuse and property crime, it is right to pursue, as he is doing, the rigorous policy of getting rid of drugs inside our prisons?
Returning to the issue of the boot camp, is it not a fact that the "no-drug" culture in the American boot camp is one of its most endearing features?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of tackling drug misuse in prisons, which is far too prevalent. The mandatory drug-testing regime for which provision was made in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is now being introduced in our


prisons. My hon. Friend is also right to emphasise the importance of the drug-free environment in boot camps in the United States.

Racist Attacks

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of racist attacks. [18356]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The Government are determined to tackle racial violence wherever it occurs. I am aware of recent deplorable incidents in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. I know that the police give the highest priority to investigating those crimes.

Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for his statement of intent, but the number of racial attacks has doubled since 1988. The Government have failed to carry out the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee that they should introduce a separate offence with higher penalties, and the Government have done nothing to tackle the attacks in my constituency and elsewhere. If they are not prepared to accept the Select Committee's report, what are they prepared to do?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is usually a fair man, knows in his heart of hearts that what he has just said to the House is not the case at all. The Government have taken action. We have introduced a power of arrest for those who distribute racially offensive material and, in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, we introduced a specific offence of intentional harassment.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that it would not be sensible to create a separate specific racial attack offence. It would create yet another hurdle for the Crown Prosecution Service to have to prove that there was racial motivation.
We have referred many of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee to the new racial attacks group which has been reinstituted.

Mr. Stephen: Is my hon. Friend aware that Her Majesty's judges already have the power to regard racial motivation as an aggravating factor, and that they can and do impose greater penalties in cases involving that?

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that valid argument. There have been several recent successful convictions for violence involving racial motivation. In one such case, the Lord Chief Justice himself emphasised that racial motivation was a severely aggravating factor. Therefore, in those cases, the courts can impose very severe sentences indeed.

Police (Defensive Equipment)

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the police service about the possible introduction of (a) the pepper spray and (b) CS gas as defensive equipment. [18358]

Mr. Howard: I took full account of the opinions of all the police staff associations before announcing my support for police trials of CS spray for self-defence.

Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the light of the tragic death this week of PC

Phillip Walters, the evaluation of that incapacitant spray is timely and necessary? Will he also tell the House whether that is an interim measure pending further evaluation of the health and safety issues surrounding the possible introduction of the pepper spray?

Mr. Howard: I am sure that the House will want to join me in expressing its condemnation of the callous murder of PC Walters, which reminds us yet again of the risks and the dangers that police officers run on our behalf day in, day out. I am sure that the House would wish to join me in extending our deepest sympathy to the family and friends of PC Walters.
As to my hon. Friend's question about sprays, he is right to say that a number of pilot schemes are proposed. We shall evaluate the results and then decide how to proceed.

Mr. Beith: I can assure the Home Secretary that there is outrage in all parts of the House at the death of a courageous police officer. In the Metropolitan police area, is body armour available to officers who believe that their duties will require them to use it? Are arms and armed response units available in all the circumstances where officers judge that they may be required? If those things are not done, the pressure for routine arming of the police so that they may be protected will become irresistible. I think that, like me, the Home Secretary would not wish that to happen if it can be avoided by the effective use of arms in a more controlled way.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He will know that the deployment of body armour and armed response vehicles is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I can confirm that those two pieces of equipment are available—body armour is now available in significant quantities. The difficulty is that no entirely satisfactory sort of armour has yet been found that is both effective and light enough to be worn for prolonged periods. That is an on-going problem, and research is continuing to try to find body armour that is both effective and can be worn comfortably for long periods.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is it not absurd that the majority of policemen who require bullet-proof vests, and obviously want the best ones, should have to pay about £300 of their own money for them? In his consultations with the police, will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss the matter and ensure that, in future, all police can get bullet-proof vests if they want them without having to pay for them out of their own money?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will be aware that chief officers are increasingly making body armour available for the officers in their force—its availability is extending all the time. I gave the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) information about its availability in the Metropolitan force, and body armour is becoming increasingly available elsewhere.

Mr. Straw: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the remarks of the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I believe that the House felt intense anger and shock when the news came through yesterday of the killing of Police Constable Phillip Walters by an armed thug. Police Constable Walters was showing the same selfless courage as is shown every day by thousands of unarmed police


officers across the country. I commend what the Secretary of State said yesterday about the routine arming of police. Does he agree that, in making difficult judgments about the availability of CS gas canisters or pepper sprays, the only issue is the protection of the police and of the public?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Yes, the only relevant criteria in the measures that I have announced are the protection of the police and of the public. The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that I have taken a number of measures since holding my present post to increase the availability of equipment that helps the police in the performance of their daily duties. They now have more batons and the availability of body army is increasing.
I hope that the CS spray will be a valuable addition to the equipment available to them. We must also recognise that no piece of equipment—not even the routine arming of the police—can ever offer an absolute guarantee of the safety of those on whose bravery and courage we have to rely day and night. We must always keep that in the forefront of our minds. We should always be aware of the deep debt that we owe to the police officers of this country.

Prisons (Security Problems)

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on continuing security problems in prisons. [18359]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): We have received a number of representations from a variety of sources.

Mr. Miller: The Minister will, of course, confirm that his Department has received representations from me regarding the escape of prisoner Roy Higginson and the subsequent shambles. The Minister will be aware that one of my concerns was the bizarre way that Mr. Higginson was able to carry on suing his neighbour, with the use of a legal aid certificate, while on the run. The series of events surrounding the case represent mistakes within the Prison Service, mistakes in the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service operated, mistakes in the guidance given to magistrates about remand and perhaps errors of judgment on the part of the police. In all areas, the responsibility rests fairly and squarely with the Home Secretary. When will he wake up to his responsibilities?

Mr. Forsyth: That question implies that my right hon. Friend can take the credit for a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of escapes from our prisons.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Bearing in mind the security problems and the amount of drugs that are reported to be circulating in prisons today, does my right hon. Friend believe that the time is right to reintroduce closed family visiting for a percentage of prisoners' sentences? Open visiting should be reintroduced only when a prisoner has shown that he means to go straight and can be relied upon.

Mr. Forsyth: I agree that, in cases where people are clearly involved in drug misuse in prisons, the introduction of closed visits might be appropriate. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to introduce closed visits as a general rule. People are sent to prison partly for rehabilitation and partly for

punishment. It is offenders who should be punished, not their families. I believe that it would be quite wrong to prevent families from being able to visit prisoners.

Mr. Trimble: How long does it take to implement necessary security measures in prisons? I know of a case whereby a serious incident in December revealed the need to install a new fence in a prison, but three months later, in March, the absence of the fence facilitated a serious riot in which prisoners gained control of a substantial part of that prison. I was told afterwards that the prison authorities were still going through the bureaucratic procedures to authorise the necessary expenditure. That incident did not take place in a prison for which the Minister is responsible, but I wonder whether the same sorts of bureaucratic and financial delays that occur in Northern Ireland also happen in the English prison service.

Mr. Forsyth: Without knowing the details of the case, I am unable to comment upon it or to make a comparison. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not a matter for me or for my right hon. Friend but it falls within the responsibilities of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether speedy and effective action is taken when breaches or weaknesses in prison security are found. I expect the answer to be yes on every occasion. As the hon. Gentleman will know, following the incidents at Whitemoor and Parkhurst, my right hon. Friend asked Sir John Learmont to examine security across the whole Prison Service. We intend to take every conceivable step to ensure that the highest standards of security apply.

Mr. Evennett: May I commend to my right hon. Friend the work of the governor and the staff of Belmarsh prison in Thamesmead and I urge him to pay them a visit soon. When will his proposals about the new regime of prison discipline be published?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments about Belmarsh, which my right hon. Friend visited recently. As to the main substance of my hon. Friend's question, we hope to be able to publish the proposals shortly.

Drugs Strategy

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new drugs strategy will be operational. [18360]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): A new drugs strategy for England for the period 1995–98 will be set out in a White Paper to be published shortly. It is the outcome of a review co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, and will start to come into effect immediately.

Mr. Mudie: The three-year strategy begins this year but we are yet to see the White Paper, which may need legislative back-up. Does the Minister agree that any delay in introducing a timetable would be totally unacceptable, particularly where the lives of children are at risk? If he does agree, will he say whether any steps have been taken to put into effect one key element of


the strategy, the drug action teams, which do not require legislation? If those steps have not been taken, why have they not been taken?

Mr. Baker: I accept that implementation of the strategy is important and urgent and work is proceeding on it. Vigorous law enforcement will continue, but, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's second point, there will be a new emphasis on drug education and prevention. At local level, the Government propose to establish about 100 multi-agency drug action teams to pursue common aims while tailoring action plans to local problems and needs. The intention is to apply £8.5 million to those teams over the next three years, and to get on with that immediately.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the establishment of any new strategy for combating the illegal use of drugs, an example and information can be obtained by studying the programme in Buckland in my constituency, which my right hon. Friend visited last week? It shows just what can be achieved when local people and the police join together to drive out those who produce drug problems.

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is quite right. My right hon. and learned Friend saw for himself the excellent work in my hon. Friend's constituency, both in that scheme and as a example of partnership to defeat crime, which is an essential part of my right hon. Friend's crime-defeating programme.

Racial Attacks Group

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to revive the inter-departmental racial attacks group as a standing committee; and if he will make a statement. [18361]

Mr. Maclean: Since its inception in 1987, the racial attacks group has twice been reconvened to consider progress and chart new developments. On each occasion, time has been left to allow earlier recommendations to take effect. The group is currently examining the needs of local multi-agency racial attacks panels.

Mr. Wray: I thank the Minister for reviving the racial attacks group. Why was it not involved in the first place, given the shocking state of affairs and the escalation of racial incidents? There were 791 incidents in Scotland last year, and the figure for England and Wales in 1992–1993 was 7,951, which rose to nearly 10,000 in 1993–94. Does he agree that the racial attacks group committee is not dealing with the problem and that we need a standing committee that reports back to Parliament?

Mr. Maclean: No, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The racial attacks group was not mothballed; it came together, made recommendations for the Government to implement and waited to see how those recommendations developed. We have reconvened it and given it a specific brief to deal with certain problems. I see no merit in its sitting continuously as a standing committee unless it has a proper job of work to do. As the hon. Gentleman quoted figures showing that racial incidents have increased, I am surprised that he did not quote the Strathclyde police area, where the number of racial incidents has fallen. In 1991,

there were 254 racial incidents; in 1994, the figure was down to 225. It is still too high, but at least the number is going down.

Mr. Congdon: There is some evidence that persistent racial harassment can lead to more serious racial attacks. Does my hon. Friend consider that more can be done to help ethnic minorities overcome their reluctance to report persistent harassment?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, there can be. We took action in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to deal with the specific problem of harassment. I hope that that will have encouraged people to come forward. Also, the police are dealing with such issues sensitively and a large number of police forces now have special groups that are capable and qualified to deal with racial incidents. That will encourage greater reporting and give racial minorities confidence to report crime. The courts now have adequate powers to deal with such incidents.

Prisoners (Police Cells)

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost per night of keeping a prisoner in a police cell in 1994. [18362]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The cost is £250.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that that is a costly and unsatisfactory method of holding prisoners and does not make the best use of police time? Given that prisons are overcrowded, would it not be better to use more resources on crime prevention and get more police on the beat, which would be more effective, more efficient and what the public desire?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why we are doing all the things that he mentioned. I agree with him specifically about the use of police cells and the costs involved. That is why we plan to eliminate the use of police cells during this financial year.

Immigration

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of (a) illegal immigrants and (b) bogus asylum seekers currently in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [18363]

Mr. Howard: There are no official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom. By its very nature, illegal immigration is difficult to measure and any estimates would be highly speculative. It is also difficult to estimate the precise extent of the abuse of asylum, but in 1994, around 80 per cent. of asylum decisions, amounting to some 16,000, were outright refusals.

Mr. Robathan: I regret that it is impossible to have clear information on such matters because such information dispels misapprehension whereas disinformation, including wild stories in newspapers, exacerbates mistrust and harms race relations. In the interests of good race relations, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that both bogus asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are pursued both fairly and firmly?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is an inseparable part of the good race relations record,


of which we can be proud, that we have a firm but fair immigration control. Our procedures are being abused both by illegal immigrants and by bogus asylum seekers. I recently announced two initiatives that will have a significant impact on the problem—greater use of containment powers and a spend-to-save initiative. I hope to announce further proposals shortly.

Ms Short: Is not the problem of bogus asylum seekers largely the Government's fault? They allow delays to grow and grow within the system. There are agents who organise false claims whom the Home Office does not pursue and prosecute. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, if he were to eliminate delays and attack the false agents, we could be generous to the real asylum seekers?

Mr. Howard: It is important to eliminate delays. That is precisely what the two initiatives that I announced in February are designed to achieve. It is absurd to suggest, however, that the problem of bogus asylum seekers is caused by the Government or by delays. Too many people wish to gain entry into this country and would use any means and any deceit to do so. I am determined to take effective action to prevent that happening.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for reiterating the need for a firm, fair and realistic policy. Does he agree that that would fit in well with pursuing our agreement on the Schengen agreement with the other member states? That would be an excellent objective for the future and would enhance the single market.

Mr. Howard: No. I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The Schengen agreement would involve the dismantling of our external frontiers, and we have no intention of doing that. Indeed, we shall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that those frontiers remain in place.

Dr. Howells: With regard to the measures taken by the Government to control the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country, will the Home Secretary confirm that there are 1.5 million container lorries a year coming through the port of Dover alone, and that the immigration and customs cover is so thin there that there is no possible way that we can know whether criminal gangs operating out of northern France are using the containers to bring in people? What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do to strengthen the cover at Dover and at other similar ports?

Mr. Howard: We rely on intelligence as the most effective way of identifying the use of container lorries to permit some illegal immigrants to enter the country. It is absurd to suppose that a series of random checks is likely to get to grips with the problem. The effective use of intelligence is the way forward. We are improving the ways in which we use that means to detect, and to deal effectively with, those who use the container lorry method of illegally entering the country.

Mr. Viggers: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, as I am aware from my constituency experience of the Haslar detention centre, that it is not unusual for alleged illegal immigrants, when they realise that their application is likely to be rejected, to change their story and claim political asylum, and for the subsequent inquiries to take as long as a year? How can it possibly take that long to inquire into such a case?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right on all counts. It is because I am determined to do what is necessary to bring down the period that it takes to deal with these matters that I announced a substantial additional expenditure in February—some £37 million over three years—to enable us to deal with those cases more quickly. Much of the delay is caused by the extent to which our appeal procedure is still being abused. That is one of the areas to which I have paid close attention and which I hope to be able to remedy in the proposals that I intend to introduce shortly.

Crime and Drugs

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the relationship between crime and drugs. [18364]

Mr. Maclean: The exact nature and extent of the relationship are unclear, but the Government remain committed to tackling both drug misuse and other criminal activity.

Mr. Alton: When the Government come to look at the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, will they look again at the seizure of assets and the way that money is diverted to central funds? Does the Minister not have some sympathy with the views of the Merseyside police authority, and other police authorities too, that funds that are sequestrated and seized from drug barons should go back into schemes that counter drug abuse and help those who have become drug addicts?

Mr. Maclean: Although such a scheme has a superficial appeal, it could lead to erratic funding year by year, because it would depend on police forces getting sufficient assets every single year to continue their excellent work. I think that it is better to allocate the large amounts of money that we allocate—about £500 million per annum—on all aspects of drugs prevention and police work, and also the substantial funding that we make available to police forces. That ensures consistency and adequate funding and does not make the police service depend each year on haphazard drug catches.

Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the installation of closed circuit television in town centres is one of the ways of tackling crime, particularly drug crime? Will he accept the thanks of the people of Market Harborough since, as a result of the £40,000 grant from the Home Office, closed circuit television will shortly be installed to make the streets more secure?

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his wise words. If he cares to invite me to Market Harborough, I shall accept the thanks in person. The big boost that we have given to CCTV in the country should make a tremendous difference in helping the police. The 106 schemes that my right hon. and learned Friend was able to announce in England and Wales could mean up to 1,000 extra CCTV cameras, which will give help to the police and protection to the public, and reduce the fear of crime.

Mr. Michael: The Minister says that the exact relationship between drugs and crime is unclear, but do he and the Home Secretary not now accept that there is a frightening link between drug-related crime and the use of weapons? Will the Minister remind the House of the


truth of events last year, that there was nothing in the Home Secretary's Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to deal with drug-related crime or weapons offences until the Labour party tabled amendments to increase penalties and make the law more effective?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is attempting to rewrite history. It would be better if he reminded the House of the number of occasions on which the official Opposition voted against parts of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, and of their firm determination to abstain on parts of the Bill. They are now saying that they played an instrumental part in it, but they abstained on its Second Reading. The fact is that the Government have set key objectives for the police service: first, to bear down on violence; secondly, to bear down on burglary; and, thirdly, to bear down on local crime problems, particularly drugs. That is a measure of our commitment to dealing with the problem.

Prison Building Programme

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the prison building programme. [18365]

Mr. Howard: Six new prisons are planned, which will be designed, constructed, managed and financed by the private sector. In addition, 2,000 new houseblock places are being provided at existing prisons over the next two years, and Lowdham Grange prison is to be rebuilt.

Mr. Bruce: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that excellent answer? Will he confirm that he will ensure that we never return to the situation that was prevalent under the past Labour Government, when courts could not pass custodial sentences, or were dissuaded from doing so, because there were no places in prisons? If my right hon. and learned Friend is looking for additional places, there is room in Portland prisons to build and expand, creating more prison officer jobs on Portland. Will he look at Portland for the expansion of the prison service?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his offer, which I shall certainly bear in mind.

Ms Janet Anderson: The Home Secretary has admitted that the Government now have no choice but to expand the prison-building programme massively. Is he aware that the number of women imprisoned for fine defaulting has almost doubled in the past five years, from 868 in 1989 to 1,440 last year? Can he explain that increase, and will he tell us whether he is satisfied that custodial sentences were both necessary and appropriate in all those cases?

Mr. Howard: If custodial sentences had not been necessary and appropriate, they would not have been passed by the courts. It is the courts that pass such sentences. The hon. Lady will know that fine defaulters are sent to prison only for wilful refusal to pay: they are those who can pay, but won't pay. Those are the circumstances in which the courts decide that such a sentence is both necessary and appropriate.

Liquor Licensing Regulations

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to remove unnecessary liquor licensing regulations. [18366]

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to remove unnecessary liquor licensing regulations. [18367]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: A number of measures are under consideration, and we have made provision to allow the sale of alcohol on Sundays through legislation which is currently completing its passage through Parliament.

Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed changes in Sunday licensing are very popular, especially with the tourist trade? Does he accept, however, that certain licensing magistrates are making the award of children's certificates very difficult, and will he continue to keep the position under review?

Mr. Forsyth: I have received representations from a number of hon. Members suggesting that the procedures to ensure—in accordance with the intentions of Parliament—that licences are available to allow children to go to into public houses where appropriate conditions exist are being frustrated by magistrates who are attaching onerous and unnecessary requirements to such licences. I am very concerned about those representations, and have asked Home Office officials to monitor what is happening.
If there is evidence of widespread attempts to frustrate the wishes of Parliament, we will not hesitate to act. It is early days; the new procedures have been in place only since the beginning of the year. I hope that it will be recognised that the granting of children's licences was a very popular move, and was supported in all quarters of the House.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The country has 65,000 pubs, which are visited by 12.5 million people every week. We also have many millions of visitors, who find the great British pub extremely attractive. What they—and I—find less attractive and quaint is the 11 pm chucking-out time.
Will my right hon. Friend take into account experiences on the continent, and consider measures which will allow people to drink after 11 pm without being forced to pay entrance fees in clubs? Could local licensing be introduced, so that any disruption to people living near pubs could be minimised but benefits to those who want to drink legitimately after 11 pm could be maximised?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend asks me to consider further liberalisation of licensing hours in respect of late-night opening. A number of concerns have been expressed about the opportunities for disruption, noise and disorder that that would create in certain communities; on the other hand, we have received representations from people who argue that it would be possible to allow local discretion for later opening. The matter is currently under consideration, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be able to reach a conclusion shortly. If we decided to take any further deregulatory steps, they would of course be subject to consultation.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that the time has really come when we should consider the question of children in public houses, restaurants and other such places? In a modern civilised world, is it not time to follow the continental fashion, so that families can eat, drink, play and enjoy themselves together, without petty restrictions?

Mr. Forsyth: That is precisely what the Government have done in introducing the new children's licences, although concern has been expressed about the policy's implementation by local magistrates. I agree, however, with the basic thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments that the licensing laws should exist only in so far as they are required to provide necessary protections. If unnecessary or over-bureaucratic provisions exist in the rules, they should be swept away. That is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's deregulation initiative is about, and that is why we are about that business in the Home Office.

Immigration Officers

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the quality of the welcome offered to visitors to the United Kingdom by immigration officers at airports and sea ports. [18368]

Mr. Nicholas Baker: A substantial and independently managed survey conducted at the end of 1992 found that most passengers compared our control favourably with that of other countries, both in speed and efficiency, and in the courtesy shown by immigration officers. Of those interviewed, 97 per cent. said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment at immigration control.

Mr. Coombs: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the quality of the welcome at airports and sea ports is extremely important for the UK tourism industry. In that context, what more can he do to reduce the length of queues, especially at London Heathrow airport at peak times, and to encourage officials to smile at visitors?

Mr. Baker: We are doing a great deal, leaving aside any instruction particularly to smile, and always observing the duty of the Immigration Service to maintain firm and fair immigration control. We are continually monitoring the queues at the major airports that my hon. Friend mentioned. We have had a quality of service initiative to lead to improvements of various types. We have introduced fast-track channels for business and first-class passengers. In time for the summer season, we are introducing earlier shifts at terminals where delays can occur because of bunching of early-morning flights. My hon. Friend will also want to know that we have a scheme for authorised tour groups of expedited clearance organised by the Immigration Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20 April. [18384]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Evennett: Did my right hon. Friend see last night's Labour party political broadcast? Can he confirm that, contrary to the information in that broadcast, under his Government since 1992 expenditure on education,

health and law and order has been substantially increased? Would he care to comment on that deplorable use of television to mislead the public?

The Prime Minister: In answer to my hon. Friend's direct question, no, I did not see the Labour party political broadcast last night. I was much better occupied meeting health authority chairmen to discuss the success of our health reforms, but I do understand from the substantial publicity generated that it contained a number of inaccuracies.
Over recent days, the Labour party has claimed that council tax is lower in Labour areas. It must know that, on a fair comparison of like for like and band for band, that is not true. Band for band, Labour councils cost more in each and every band. The Labour party must know that spending on health has gone up, spending on education has gone up, and spending on the police has gone up, contrary to what it has led people to believe. The new Labour party has had a lot to say about trust, so I hope that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will withdraw the inaccuracies from the broadcast last night. If I may quote him, he has reached "a defining moment".

Mr. Blair: On the Tories, truth and tax, will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that, having fought the election on a pledge to cut tax year on year, as a result of the 20 new taxes since he was re-elected, the average family is £800 a year worse off? Is that true or false—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: The answer is that the right hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. The House will have noticed that he has not taken the opportunity to withdraw the blatant untruths that he and his right hon. Friends have been peddling in recent days. He knows that those things are factually inaccurate. He continues to repeat them. He appears at press conferences where they are repeated. On that basis, if he had any trust, he is throwing it away.

Mr. Blair: Let the country be the judge then. It is right, is it not, that on 27 March 1992, days before the general election, the Prime Minister pledged specifically that he would not extend value added tax? When the Labour party said that he would, we were accused of dishonesty and scaremongering. It is true, is it not, that at the very next Budget after that election, he extended VAT to fuel and power? Who told the truth then? Was it the Labour party which warned that the Tories would extend VAT or was it the Conservatives who promised that they would not?

The Prime Minister: On matters of fact, within the last 48 hours, on matters readily determinable, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have told untruths and repeated those untruths. I set it out before the last election that I wished to see tax reduced. That was my position and it remains my position. When it is prudent to do so, we shall return to tax cutting. On that occasion, I hope that we will have the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. As to the earlier point, I repeat that within the last two days, the Opposition have stated repeatedly facts which they must know to be untrue. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw them?

Mr. King: On behalf of this House and our country, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convey to the President of the United States and to the people of the United States our deepest sympathy for the terrible terrorist outrage that they have experienced? Will he


assure the President that any assistance that we can give through intelligence or other sources to help bring to justice those responsible for that outrage will be given? Will he reaffirm to the President our welcome for his firm assertion that terrorism must be fought from whatever quarter it may come?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is hard to convey the depth of feeling that everyone will have in their hearts about the hideous act of barbarism and terrorism that occurred in Oklahoma and the misery and death that it has caused. I have been in touch with President Clinton and I have expressed our profound sympathy to him, to that country and to the bereaved and injured. I told the President that we are ready to help in any way we can and, as events will show, we are assisting.

Mr. Ashdown: I am sure that the whole House will support what the Prime Minister has just said. On the subject of cuts, will the Prime Minister accept that, as schools face the crisis caused by the Government's cutting of education funding across the country this year, they will be perplexed to understand why the Government have increased the funding on education quangos from less than £3 million in 1987 to more than £98 million this year? Why is that?

The Prime Minister: We have increased funding on education right across the board, consistently year after year. That is why more than 50 per cent. extra has been spent on every pupil up and down the country since we came into office. That is why more than 50 per cent. more is spent on school books and it is why there are far more people in classrooms helping the teachers. It is why children are getting far better education results and why more of our youngsters are going on to university; it is because we have given a priority to education at primary level, secondary level, specialist level and university level, and will continue to do so.

Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the light of the appalling tragedy at Oklahoma and the terrorist incident at Yokohama, it would be absolute folly to reduce expenditure or in any way to cut back on security and intelligence?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the vital importance of security and intelligence and the important priority that we have given it. In addition, of course, to the appalling attack that we saw in Oklahoma, it was also a day on which we saw terrorist attacks in Spain and possibly also in Japan.

Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April. [18386]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: As we all join in sympathy with the mourners and sufferers in the unspeakable terrorist outrage in Oklahoma, will the Prime Minister please consult the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary about the ways in which international terrorists are abusing our laws on asylum and sanctuary? Notorious criminals such as Ganouchi, who are seeking to escape justice in their own countries, are turning Britain into a well-known haven for terrorists. As international terrorists

know no boundaries and no frontiers and as no one knows where they will strike next, please will the Prime Minister give that matter absolute priority?

The Prime Minister: I reject the suggestion that this country is in any way a haven for terrorists, but I share with the hon. and learned Gentleman the importance of dealing with the problem. We attach a very high priority to countering any activity in the United Kingdom by international terrorist groups, and I can confirm to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are at the moment looking into the law on asylum, with the intention of making improvements and bringing them before the House. I hope that we will have widespread support across the Floor of the House for the measures against terrorism. I look forward to seeing the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends in our Lobby on that particular matter. It is a matter to which we attach the very greatest importance.

Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the general public that there is no need for local authorities to dismiss teachers? Their income is not hypothecated. If they have to make savings, they can make them across the whole range of local government services. They could get rid of administrators or social workers, or stop printing political newspapers.

The Prime Minister: As I have indicated to the House on previous occasions, we regard education as a priority for the Government. It will remain a priority. I believe that within local authority budgets, and education budgets in particular, the classroom teacher should remain the priority.

Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April. [18387]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Purchase: If the support grant settlement that applied to Westminster Tory council were applied to English authorities generally, would not 95 per cent. of Labour councils have no rate increase this year? Is the Prime Minister aware that, by contrast with Westminster's inflated grant, Wolverhampton has lost £8 million in grant and has had to make £7 million of cuts in its budget? Is not it time that the Prime Minister stopped taxing by stealth, came clean and put the formula correctly to the people of England?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is repeating yet more unsubstantiated and inaccurate Labour smears, as I will now demonstrate. The grant is determined by an objective formula which takes into—[Interruption.] What the hon. Gentleman does not know is that the previous Labour Government were more generous to Westminster as compared with, say, Liverpool, than the present Conservative Government. In 1978, they assessed Westminster's need per head at 49 per cent. more than Liverpool, compared with 42 per cent. more this year. The hon. Gentleman did not know that, because he just picked up the latest smear from Transport House. He should check his facts and withdraw.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that we do not allow—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We must hear the question.

Mr. Bottomley: May I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that we do not allow the north American habit of paid political advertising on television? It might lead to an extension of the kind of broadcast that was shown last night, which demonstrated that the person who authorised it is unprincipled, untrustworthy and should not be allowed to control public expenditure. He cannot tell an increase from a decrease.

The Prime Minister: I certainly share that view about paid political broadcasting on television. I think that very few people would wish to see that. What we really saw last night was that behind the high-flown language of new Labour lies the gutter politics of old Labour. That is the case. It has always been the case and it is now becoming obvious.

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April. [18388]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Illsley: First, let me assure the Prime Minister that this question does not come from Transport House. Does he realise that, if Barnsley local authority received the same amount of Government grant per head as Westminster council, it would not have any need to levy a council tax at all and could re-pay each council tax payer a staggering £867 each, rather than having to face council tax capping, which will mean sacking teachers and increasing still further some of the largest class sizes in the country? Why should children in my constituency have to suffer to subsidise a corrupt council?

The Prime Minister: If every council in the country had the same grant as Tower Hamlets, they could make a bigger reduction than they could for Westminster.

Mr. Rowe: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Liberal-Labour coalition, which now tries to control Kent county council, discovered at its recent meeting that it had underspent by £17 million, yet nevertheless flatly refused to fund the teachers' pay increase? Is that not a cynical abuse of the children in our schools for party political purposes?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fair point that could be echoed by many of my other hon. Friends who are unfortunate enough to have either Labour or Liberal Democrat councils.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 APRIL—Second Reading of the Pensions Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Team and Group Ministries Measure, which is a Church of England (General Synod) Measure.
TUESDAY 25 APRIL—Second Reading of the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 26 APRIL—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Criminal Appeal Bill.
THURSDAY 27 APRIL—Debate on China and Hong Kong on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 28 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 26 April at 10.30 am to consider the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 13 December 1994, relating to the accession of new member states to the European Union.
[Wednesday 26 April:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: unnumbered, Enlargement of the European Union. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 70-ii (1994–95).]
As for the following week, I am at present able to say only that the business on Monday 1 May will be the remaining stages of the Children (Scotland) Bill.

Mrs. Taylor: May I thank the Leader of the House for that information and suggest that, in view of the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time earlier, perhaps he would like to reconsider that business so that we may have a debate in Government time, and an explanation from the Government, on why the typical family is paying £800 a year more in tax?
On the specific business of the House next week, will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the report of the Select Committee on National Heritage on rugby? Will he tell us whether the Secretary of State will be able to give an early response to the report's recommendations, especially that to withdraw funding from rugby union? Will the Secretary of State ensure that existing rugby union applications for public funding are frozen until decisions following on from that report are made?
On the related matter of the restructuring of rugby league, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has asked the Director General of Fair Trading to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, will there be any response, during the debate on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Wednesday morning, to the need to protect some of the smaller rugby clubs, whose future is threatened by that particular deal, which seems to be a case of someone trying up buy up an entire sport and which is causing concern among hon. Members of all parties?
On a totally different issue, at present excluded from next week's business, the Leader of the House will be aware that on Tuesday the Foreign Secretary made a statement in New York about the non-proliferation treaty. Can he tell us when the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on the Government's position to the House? Members of Parliament—on both sides of the House, I should have thought—are becoming increasingly concerned about the contempt for the House shown by Ministers. It is now becoming customary for important statements to be made at press conferences or in written answers, rather than being made to the House first. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that important point on board and ensure that in future important statements are made in person by Ministers to the House of Commons?
Finally, I protest most strongly about the unwillingness of the Leader of the House to find time for a Supply day next week. On 30 March I mentioned the need for an early Supply day, and on Tuesday I asked for an assurance that the rearrangement of proceedings on the Criminal Appeal Bill should not prevent us from having one. As next week's business cannot possibly all be categorised as urgent, why can we not have a Supply day next week? What are the Government afraid of—that we shall have a debate on London health?

Mr. Newton: Of course I always respond in good faith to what the hon. Lady says about Opposition days. Despite what she said, she might reasonably recognise that there is a need to make progress on some quite important—indeed, very important—measures, many of which, including the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill and the Criminal Appeal Bill, were the subject of strong Opposition representations at the time of the Queen's Speech. There has also been substantial pressure from both sides of the House for a debate on Hong Kong and China, and I have responded to that.
The hon. Lady will know that our aim regarding the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty by a substantial majority. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will wish to make a statement to the House if and when he judges it appropriate. She will know, and, I hope, accept, that I am always concerned to protect the rights of the House in that matter. But I also note her concern, and will certainly continue to ensure that Ministers make statements to the House when it seems right to do so—as, indeed, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did yesterday.
As for rugby league, I cannot sensibly attempt to predict or pre-empt the contents of the speeches that will be made during the Adjournment debate on Wednesday, but I shall of course draw the hon. Lady's concern to the attention of the Minister who will speak in that debate. As for referring the proposal for a rugby super-league to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, that is of course a matter entirely for the Director General of Fair Trading. It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in Sports Council decisions on the funding of rugby union, nor would we wish to discriminate against rugby union in favour of rugby league.
Lastly, I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied entirely convincingly to the points raised about taxation in earlier exchanges.

Sir Peter Hordern: Is it not time that the House had a debate on the economy? Can my right hon.


Friend tell us when the Opposition last requested a Supply day debate on that subject? Was not that a long time ago, and have the Opposition anything to hide?

Mr. Newton: That was so long ago that it is beyond my memory. It may be relevant to observe that I have repeatedly made it clear to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that, were she to ask for a debate on the continuing fall in unemployment, that might be an attractive proposition.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Notwithstanding the welcome initiative by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in securing an Adjournment debate on nurses' pay this evening, will the Government give Government time for a proper debate on the pay review recommendation restricting the nurses' pay increase to 1 per cent. nationally, with 2 per cent. to be negotiated locally? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is disturbing evidence that worrying conditions are being attached to any locally agreed increases? Should not the matter be discussed by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Newton: More than 100 trusts have made known their pay offers to nurses, and the majority of those offers are around 3 per cent. Local pay negotiation on the basis recommended by the pay review body—I emphasise the word recommended—is the right way forward.

Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will have noticed the remarkable progress made in terms of early-day motion 186, tabled by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
[That this House calls attention, in this 50th anniversary year of victory in the Second World War, to the proposals by the Officers' Pensions Society and the War Widows' Association of Great Britain, wholly supported by the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations, to honour the dead of two world wars and the campaigns since 1945, by paying Britain's war widows a pension for life and the widows of servicemen a pension of at least half that of their late husbands; and urges Her Majesty's Government to make a positive response to proposals which command such warm and widespread support throughout Britain.]
The motion has the support of 235 hon. Members, and I was assured yesterday that a further 45 who could not sign it have given their support in writing. Could my right hon. Friend say what the Government's view is on the matter? We are now approaching the point where we shall be celebrating VE day over the weekend of 6, 7 and 8 May, and there is speculation in the press that ought to be put to rest.

Mr. Newton: It is appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to set out the Government's position in the debate on Monday. I have his authority to say that I do not anticipate that the indication that he will give will be in a direction unwelcome to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Leader of the House aware that the BBC has, hour by hour today, been broadcasting details of the Nolan report?

Since the BBC's accounts of what the report says have gone unchallenged, should not Members have details from Nolan and also a ministerial statement?

Mr. Newton: There is no suggestion that the leak—if that is what it is—described by the right hon. Gentleman has come from the Government. Clearly, the content of the Nolan report is a matter for the Nolan committee, and it is to the committee that the right hon. Gentleman's question should be directed.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend knows that I and many of my hon. Friends want to see the introduction of a licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation, to prevent both benefit fraud and further loss of life in fires. I understand that the measure will come before the relevant Committee in the near future. Once that has been done, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate the matter, so that the measure can be introduced as soon as possible to prevent further loss of life?

Mr. Newton: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it unfriendly, but merely an expression of propriety, if I observe that, were his intelligence to be correct, I am the Chairman of the Committee to which the proposals would come. I undertake to bear the point in mind.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware of the deep sense of seething resentment in the national health service over the pay review arrangements? Does he understand that some health service workers object strongly to the fact that others have been singled out for a 3 per cent. rise, while they must accept a 1 per cent. rise? Is not it time for a full debate here in Parliament, so that the Government can at least explain why they are proceeding in this utterly monstrous way?

Mr. Newton: I said last week, or perhaps the week before, that the introduction of an independent pay review body was welcomed by the profession. Normally, there has been understandable pressure to implement its recommendations in full. That is what has happened.

Sir Norman Fowler: Is it still the Government's intention to make a statement on the rules governing cross-media ownership? If so, when can we expect that statement to be made?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend knows well that the matters are under examination, but I cannot at the moment forecast when a statement might be made.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Bearing in mind the fact that the part of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that dealt with new age travellers has not yet come into force for reasons which, I believe, are related to Europe, does the Leader of the House accept that there is still a large problem in my constituency and in the surrounding area with people known as local travellers, who cover their caravans and park on public land? It can take seven to 10 days to get them to leave. They cause enormous damage, distress, mess and waste. May the House have an urgent debate on that subject to see what can be done on behalf of communities such as mine, which are suffering from such invasions time and again?

Mr. Newton: I hope that I shall not be thought ungenerous if I harbour the suspicion that that question


may be a frustrated supplementary from Home Office questions. [Interruption.] I see that I have guessed right. In that case, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the scandalous proposal being considered by Essex county council to deprive children attending Southend's four excellent grammar schools of free school transport, and the fact that the only children who will suffer will be those in low-income households in Southend and Shoeburyness, may we debate the matter next week? We could then simply ask what the decent and committed socialist and Liberal people of the past, who fought so hard for the underprivileged, would have thought of that scandalous proposal by Lib-Lab-controlled Essex county council.

Mr. Newton: I hope that it is not an improper use of the Dispatch Box to say that I have made an almost identical point in a letter to the chairman of the Essex education committee following many representations from my constituents, and I share my hon. Friend's views. I hope that he will succeed in obtaining a Wednesday morning Adjournment debate to ventilate that matter.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Had the Leader of the House been in his place earlier, he would have heard the Home Secretary tell the House that women fine defaulters are gaoled only if they wilfully refuse to pay their fines. Clearly, that is not the case and they are gaoled for something called culpable neglect, which basically means that they are poor and choose to spend their money on other essentials, such as feeding their children. In last month's Question Time, the Home Secretary showed his ignorance of the options available to magistrates courts in dealing with fine defaulters, much to the dismay of the Magistrates Association. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Home Secretary brushes up his knowledge of the criminal justice system before he next comes to the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Lady observed, I was not able to be present for Home Office questions. Not having heard what my right hon. and learned Friend said, I do not propose to comment, beyond saying that I regard the hon. Lady's remarks as tendentious and offensive.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Could my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on local government taxation, so that the unquestionable fact may be brought out that Labour councils tax people more than Conservative councils? Ealing Labour council has put up council tax by 10 per cent. while drastically cutting services and damaging children's education, especially that of children with special needs, which should be looked after.

Mr. Newton: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. On a band-for-band comparison, there is no doubt that Conservative councils come out better than Labour and Liberal councils. In the forthcoming year, the average Labour council tax bill will be nearly 40 per cent.

more than the average Conservative council tax bill in every band, and the average Liberal Democrat council tax bill will be 25 per cent. more.

Mr. Terry Lewis: May I assure the Leader of the House that my question is not a frustrated overspill from Home Office questions, but a serious request for an early debate on firearms? Over the past couple of days in Salford, legally held firearms have again been stolen from private premises. This is the second time in the past few months that I have raised the matter in the House. The guns taken in the first burglary have claimed three lives. There was a death in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) over the weekend and a serious shooting in Bolton. We are reaching epidemic proportions of legally held firearms being stolen and entering the criminal fraternity. The matter needs to be debated, and the House needs to know exactly what is going on in some of the areas that I have just mentioned.

Mr. Newton: That is indeed a serious question, and demands a comparable response. I shall bring the question and the anxieties underlying it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
I also believe that that sounds like a good subject for a Wednesday morning debate, were the hon. Gentleman to consider applying for one and to be successful.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I support the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) for a debate on the economy? I say that especially because there is talk in some circles of a further increase in the base rate. Bearing in mind the fact that any further increase in interest rates would be very detrimental to our economic recovery, and that most of the purchases that the United Kingdom makes are in dollars, not in deutschmarks, and it is against the deutschmark that the pound has decreased in value, it is vital, if this country is to make an economic recovery, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury are made well aware of the opinions held in all parts of the House.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has struck a blow in that direction by asking his question, which I am sure will be noted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do not think that I can add to what I said earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern).

Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Leader of the House aware of the report published this week by Crisis, highlighting the fact that, after 30 years, tuberculosis has returned to London streets? In view of that, why has the Cabinet blocked the Opposition Supply day debate on London's health services? Is it because criticism of the health service reforms, and indeed of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is now being made from both sides of the House? If that is the case, surely what should be of primary concern when choosing debates in the House is Londoners' health needs, not the needs of failing Secretaries of State.

Mr. Newton: I simply do not accept the suggestion about blocking a specific debate on a specific subject. As far as I am aware, my principal contribution in the legislative programme area for which I am especially


responsible has been to provide time for an important Bill connected with the further reorganisation of the health service, to improve it.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend reconsider the subject of next Thursday's foreign affairs debate? Is it not the case that the really urgent subject that needs the immediate attention of the House is the developing crisis in former Yugoslavia and particularly Bosnia, especially as, in recent days, three British soldiers were wounded, one seriously, and two French soldiers belonging to the United Nations Protection Force were killed?

Mr. Newton: Of course, without in any way minimising—quite the reverse—the importance of the matter that my hon. Friend mentioned, I think that he will acknowledge that the issue of China and Hong Kong and the British relationship is also of considerable importance, and I have been pressed for a debate about that at business questions in several recent weeks. I have so far been able to respond to that, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's representations in mind.

Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the private Members' Bills that could be debated on Friday 28 April is the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—that is, if it is able to proceed through Committee next week. To assist, it would be useful if time were made available for that Committee to sit on Wednesday afternoon, not only on Wednesday morning, and potentially on Thursday. I understand that the Leader of the House would have to place a motion on the Order Paper to facilitate that. I am asking him to do that, to give the House a chance to debate that crucial Bill, which was so strongly supported on Second Reading.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may take the opportunity—I hope that he will think it in order—to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in telephoning me earlier to ask me to consider that matter. I said then that I would consider it but that that would be against the background of my repeated comments in the House in recent weeks that I did not anticipate changing the normal arrangements for private Members' Bills, so I would not wish to raise false hopes. However, I shall reply to him formally on the matter.

Mr. Gary Streeter: In view of gross inaccuracies in the Labour party political broadcast last evening, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for National Heritage to come to the House next week to make a statement about whether that broadcast complied with existing law on broadcasting standards? Is it not appropriate to refer the wilful attempt by the shadow Chancellor to mislead the British people to the Nolan committee?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has made some good points, following on from what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's questions. If I were to arrange a debate on such matters, I would prefer to arrange one in which the Government's record, not least in spending on education, health and police, could be fully set out.

Mr. Derek Enright: Does the Leader of the House recall that at Edinburgh, shortly before the last election, the Prime Minister said that the Government had

an allergy to tax and wanted to bring it down? Could we have a debate on the history of this Government and their tax record?

Mr. Newton: I have adverted to that subject once in exchanges today, following on from what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's questions. I would be more attracted by the hon. Gentleman's proposition were he to advert to the fact that more than 5 million people now pay tax at only 20p in the pound as a result of the Government's actions.

Mr. Barry Field: Following the welcome news from my right hon. Friend about war widows' pensions, could he use his considerable influence to see whether there is support throughout the House for Big Ben to ring out a double noonday chime to mark the end of hostilities in Europe on VE day and the part that the BBC and the chimes of Big Ben played in keeping the flame of hope alive in the darkest hours that the world has ever seen and to record the privileges in the House that we enjoy today because of the sacrifices made by those men and women?

Mr. Newton: I would certainly want to underline and express my agreement with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. I had not contemplated interfering with Big Ben as part of the celebrations. I shall reflect on that suggestion.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Given the low level of the pound, coupled with increased taxation and the speculation about possible rises in the base rate, may I add my voice to the calls that have been made on both sides of the House for an early debate on the Government's economic policy?

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman would undertake to look at the record on exports, the record on growth, the record on unemployment and the record on attracting inward investment, I would be more attracted by his proposition.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: If my right hon. Friend gives way to the Opposition Members who want a debate on health, could he ensure that it is wider than health in London, so that those of us who represent hospitals in the provinces can not only say with what success we have built 800 new hospitals as a result of spreading resources more widely, but how successful hospitals such as Burton hospital are? Burton hospital has a charter mark for excellence that is unsurpassed in the rest of the country. It leads the country in electronic and technical advances, has increased the number of consultants by 12 and has slashed waiting times by half. Such successes should be set against the ridiculous over-concentration of criticisms about what is happening in London.

Mr. Newton: One conspicuous feature of recent debate on such matters has been that the voice of those outside London has not been heard as clearly as the voice of those inside London. Historically, large numbers of people from outside London had to come into London for treatment because the facilities did not exist where they lived. That is precisely the imbalance that the Government are seeking to correct.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we debate the astonishing and distressing news that I received yesterday in a letter from the head of the Prison Service,


telling me of the fivefold increase in the number of prisoners transferred from prisons to mental institutions—from 141 in 1985 to 770 now? The majority of them are people who were transferred before sentence and the increase coincides precisely with the care in the community programme. Until we have such a debate, the waste and cruelty of imprisoning people who are not criminals, but confused and mentally ill, will continue.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he has, in a sense, referred to the second health measure that I might have mentioned in an earlier answer. There is currently in front of the House a measure which is concerned with the care of people who are mentally ill and which is designed to tackle some of the problems that have been acknowledged.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May we have an early debate about regional development so that we can assess the success of the policy in some areas and explore how other areas, such as the south coast, can benefit from that successful policy?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's request in mind. I understand the reason why she makes it. She will be aware that, in the recent review of the regional map, careful account was taken of the new economic pattern that is developing in some parts of the, country, including my hon. Friend's constituency.

Ms Janet Anderson: Does the Leader of the House recall the statement made by the Prime Minister at the launch of the Conservative manifesto in March 1992? He said:
We want to see a cascade of wealth from one generation to another.
Is the Leader of the House aware that an increasing number of elderly people are being forced to sell their homes and to use their life savings in order to fund their stay in residential nursing homes? Is he further aware that the Sunday Express has called it a "tax on care", which has been introduced by stealth? Will he assure us that there will be an early debate on the Government's taxation by stealth and their general taxation policy?

Mr. Newton: While I do not accept for a moment the hon. Lady's description, as always I shall courteously bear in mind her request for a debate.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will the Leader of the House consider granting time for a debate on copyright and rights of performance—a subject that has not been debated in the House for more than five years? A large number of musicians, composers and conductors living in my constituency have expressed great concern about the copyright and rights of performance regulations. They believe that they will suffer major disadvantages compared with their colleagues in other European countries. They are also worried about the possible extensions of copyright. Will the Leader of the House look into that matter and arrange to have a short but effective debate on the subject in order to set their minds at rest?

Mr. Newton: I can be fairly forthcoming on that matter, although I am not yet certain about the timing. I think my hon. Friend knows that changes in the United

Kingdom copyright law affecting music and other areas will be necessary as a result of various Community directives that have been adopted already. The Government have consulted widely about the matter and we shall bring forward statutory instruments in due course. They will require the approval of both Houses, so Parliament will have an opportunity to consider such legislation.

Mr. John Gunnell: Will the Leader of the House arrange to have an early debate about the possible privatisation of nuclear power stations? I understand that he or some of his Cabinet colleagues have been discussing that issue and it might prove helpful if the whole House were able to debate it also. We could then gauge whether the public are any happier about that proposal than they were about the President of the Board of Trade's previous privatisation suggestion.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that, if such a proposal were brought forward, appropriate opportunities would be arranged for the House to consider it.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging an urgent debate about education? I raise this matter in light of the National Union of Teachers conference last weekend, when we witnessed horrendous behaviour by teachers, who not only mobbed the Labour education spokesman but threatened strike action. The House should hear the comments of the five Labour Members of Parliament who are sponsored by the NUT. They should come to the Chamber and confirm whether they stand by the NUT or whether they intend to resign their sponsorship.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will be widely echoed, certainly on Conservative Benches. Her suggestion will undoubtedly be considered by those at whom it is directed.

Mr. Don Touhig: At Wembley three years ago this month, the Prime Minister said:
I'll tell you what you need for a strong recovery…you need low taxation…Let me tell you what you need to stay in recession. You need higher taxes".
He continued:
So let's hear it for a successful, low tax economy".
In view of the calls from both sides of the House for a debate about the Government's taxation and economic policies, will the Leader of the House urgently reconsider the answers that he gave earlier and arrange to have such a debate as soon as possible?

Mr. Newton: One of the reasons why Britain is attracting overseas investment to a greater extent than other European countries—and some investment from European countries themselves—and is an increasingly attractive place to do business, is precisely that we have such a tax regime in comparison with other countries in Europe.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does the Leader of the House agree that, following the excellent suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), it might be a good idea to widen the scope of future debate to trade union behaviour in general, so that the public could focus on the important phenomenon whereby union leaders and the rank and file


are asserting themselves increasingly in a way that will be all too obvious in controlling the Labour party in the future, just as they did in the past?

Mr. Newton: Were I to accede to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), it would be right to widen the debate in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for the House to discuss local government finance and local taxation so that we can consider the contrast between the Government, who wish to maintain capping, and Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who wish to remove capping, which undoubtedly would lead to massive rises in taxation throughout the country?
We might also be able to examine specifically the expenditure of Lancashire county council. While the Government have increased expenditure in Lancashire by 1.4 per cent., Labour-controlled Lancashire county council has reduced the delegated budgets to our schools by 5.5 per cent. The county council is playing politics with the education of children in our county and that should not be allowed to happen.

Mr. Newton: Given the excess council taxation, for which I have already given the figures, in Labour and Liberal Democrat authorities, even with capping, my hon. Friend is certainly right to advert to the even greater problems that people under such councils would face with no capping.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: My right hon. Friend is already aware that the BBC has obtained and has been using all day information about the confidential deliberations of the Nolan committee. Will he make time for the House to consider that irony and whether high standards in public life are best served by the use of a betrayal of trust by somebody closely connected with the committee, or by a so-called public broadcasting service instigating and utilising such a misuse of trust?

Mr. Newton: As I said earlier, clearly it is primarily a matter for the Nolan committee, if it wishes to consider it, but I am quite sure that it will also be extremely concerned about what has occurred. I have no knowledge of where any such leak may have come from.

Privileges

Madam Speaker: We now come to the first motion on privileges. It might be helpful if I explain the procedure to be followed in the debate on the Committee of Privileges.
The motion itself will be moved formally, after which I propose to call, if they wish, each of the three Members whose conduct is called into question in the Committee's report. After that, I propose to call the Leader of the House as Chairman of the Privileges Committee. The debate will then proceed in the normal way. Under the business of the House motion agreed yesterday, the debate has to be brought to a conclusion after two hours.
My provisional selection of amendments was posted earlier today. The amendments that I shall be prepared to call formally when the debate is concluded are amendments (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). If amendment (b) were to be agreed to, amendment (c) would fall. Similarly, if amendment (d) were to be agreed to, amendments (e) and (f) would fall.
The House may find it convenient to know what action I propose to take regarding access to the precincts if—and I emphasise "if"—any hon. Member is suspended at the conclusion of proceedings on the motion. I am advised—and it is stated in "Erskine May" on page 399—that it is the practice of the House that
A Member suspended from the service of the House on a motion not made pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 is not excluded from the precincts of the House unless the order for his suspension expressly provides therefor.
In interpreting this practice, it will be my intention to order that such access by any Member suspended today shall be confined to access to his office by the most direct route possible.
Finally, I know that the number of hon. Members wishing to speak in the debate is far more than I could possibly call in the two hours available, so I ask for brevity from those Members who catch my eye.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House—

(i) approves the First Report from the Committee of Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 351);
(ii) considers that, having regard to the conclusions of the Committee in respect of the honourable Member for Colne Valley, the conduct of the honourable Member fell below the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members, and therefore formally reprimands him for his actions; and suspends him from the service of the House for ten sitting days, with suspension of his salary as a Member for the same period and
(iii) considers that, having regard to the conclusions of the Committee in respect of the honourable Member for Bosworth, the conduct of the honourable Member fell below the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members, and therefore formally reprimands him for his actions; and suspends him from the service of the House for twenty sitting days, with suspension of his salary as a Member for the same period.— [Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Graham Riddick: Madam Speaker, the Committee of Privileges has criticised me for making a serious error of judgment. Last July, I accepted that I had made an error of judgment and I apologised to the House. I willingly repeat that apology once again to the House of Commons this afternoon.
I am grateful to the Privileges Committee for acknowledging that I came to my own conclusion that the proposed arrangement was not appropriate, that I returned a cheque uncashed at the earliest opportunity, and that I did that before I had any idea that it was a journalistic set-up.
I hope that the House will accept that, having made an initial misjudgment, I did then endeavour to behave according to the standards that the House expects of its Members: first, by inquiring how to register the proposed arrangement; secondly, by deciding within 24 hours, entirely of my own volition, not to accept any payment; and, thirdly, by immediately apologising to the House when I realised that my actions, to whatever degree, may have undermined the standing of the House. If the House feels that those endeavours failed in any respect, I can do no more than express my deep regret to the House. There are no other essential points about the Committee's report that I wish to make this afternoon.
I shall make two points in conclusion. First, I would like to express my thanks to many colleagues in the House, who have given me great support and friendship in recent weeks. Secondly, I would like to express my gratitude for the understanding and support that I have received from my constituents. In the eight years that I have been in the House, I have always regarded the work, that I do in my constituency, especially the assistance that I am able to provide to individual constituents with their particular problems, as the most important part of my job as a Member. I rededicate myself to the service of my constituents in the months and years ahead.
Finally, in line with the original tradition of the House, I feel that it would be better if the House were to debate this matter unencumbered by my presence. I therefore intend now to withdraw from the House.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Madam Speaker, I wish to offer my unreserved apologies to you and to the whole House for the error that I made on 7 July 1994. I fully accept that I did not evaluate wisely or correctly the proposition that was made to me. Nor did I seek proper advice. It is a matter of considerable regret to me that I should have done anything that could have damaged the reputation of the House or caused concern in the constituency of Bosworth, which I am proud to represent.
I hope that all hon. Members recognise that I much regret my error. I hope that hon. Members and you, Madam Speaker, will be able to accept my sincere apologies.
In accordance with precedent, and with your permission, Madam Speaker, I intend to withdraw when I sit down.
I have always regarded being a Member of Parliament as a great honour and a great responsibility. I much regret what has occurred and I ask the House to accept my sincere apologies.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I think that the House will wish to acknowledge, in the unhappy

situation with which we are all confronted, the clear and unequivocal apologies that my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) have expressed. I shall endeavour to ensure that my speech is consistent with the note that they have struck.
The motion is in my name as Leader of the House, but I necessarily speak also as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, whose report we are debating. To chair the Committee in this instance was a task which I must say was as difficult and as unpleasant as any that I have had in over 20 years in this place. I have little doubt that all those who undertook membership of the Committee will share that view.
I see no need—nor do I wish to do so—to remind the House of the events that led to the report, to describe at length the evidence that we took or to rehearse the Committee's conclusions. The evidence has been published in full. The background and the conclusions reached by the Committee, having considered that evidence, are set out clearly in the report.
The motion that I move seeks the endorsement of the House for that report, including its criticism of The Sunday Times, and its conclusions in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). The report incorporates the resolutions proposed by the Committee—namely, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) should be reprimanded and suspended without salary for 20 sitting days, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) should be reprimanded and suspended without salary for 10 sitting days.
In speaking to that, I should make two important points, the first of which is that the report relates to the first half of a two-part remit given by you, Madam Speaker, on 12 July last year, to examine the allegations against the Members named in The Sunday Times and to advise on the law and practice of Parliament in that area. The Committee felt—again, I believe, rightly—that it should deal with the specific allegations before turning to the second and wider part of the remit. Clearly, though, there are wider questions that the Committee will need to go on to consider. In doing that, it may, of course, need to take account of any relevant recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and of any consideration that the House itself might give to any such recommendations.
My second and more important point is to emphasise the fact that this was a unanimous report. Of course I understand that there are differences of opinion in the House, which are reflected in the amendments, just as there were—I hope that members of the Committee will not mind my acknowledging—in the discussion and deliberation in the Committee, but I believe that the Committee has done a service to the House by the agreement that was reached through careful and constructive discussion and which has achieved consensus among 17 senior long-standing Members of the House. Against that background, I would not think it right to advise the House to depart from those unanimous recommendations by accepting any of the amendments tabled.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: In considering the report, I seek my right hon. Friend's clarification on


something which, frankly, I just do not understand. It relates to what is said in paragraph 48, under the heading Conclusions and Recommendations. It says:
Against this the House will have to put into the balance the letter sent by Mr. Riddick to the Clerk of the Committee on 3rd March after he had given evidence.
So I turned to appendix A and read that letter, and re-read it. I do not understand why it should be set against the evidence given by my hon. Friend, because I find it a helpful letter. It was seeking to correct misleading reports in the press. It is indeed a polite letter; one might even say that it is the sort of letter that a solicitor might encourage one to write in the circumstances. If I am asked to put that with what my hon. Friend said, I wonder why the Committee made such a harsh recommendation in his case.

Mr. Newton: I think that the Committee simply felt that the further written material that my hon. Friend had provided needed to be taken into account with the oral evidence that he had given earlier and his earlier statement to the House. It was no more, I think, than that.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Will he confirm that today is a House of Commons day and that there will be a free vote? Can he advise me why the Government payroll vote is being whipped to vote for the suspension of my two hon. Friends?

Mr. Newton: I can confirm, as I said earlier, that although these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, it is not the norm, nor is it the practice today, for such voting to take place on a whipped party basis.
I conclude by simply saying that the reputation of the House has inescapably been damaged. We all want to do what we can to help restore it. I believe that the most effective step that we can take today towards restoring it is for the House to accept without variation the unanimous report that the Committee has laid before it.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: There can be no doubt that the disciplining of hon. Members for breaches of the obligations that we have is one of the most distasteful tasks that the House is called on to perform. On occasions it is necessary, however, and today is one such occasion.
If standards of propriety are to be maintained—in the current climate, some would say "re-established"—it is essential for us to make it clear not only to hon. Members but, just as important, to the public that certain types of behaviour are unacceptable, and that such behaviour must and will result in sanctions from the House. There may be—indeed, I know that there are—disagreements about which sanctions are most appropriate in this case; but our first duty today is to send a clear message to the outside world that the House will take action against hon. Members who, by their behaviour, damage the reputation of Parliament itself. For that is what has happened: the action of a couple of hon. Members has undermined the reputation of us all.
I congratulate members of the Committee of Privileges on the work that they have done to produce their unanimous report. Unlike the Leader of the House, I do not serve on the Committee and am not privy to all its workings; but, given the difficulties involved in its investigation—especially the early, genuine

disagreements about the holding of sittings in public—I feel that its members should be congratulated, and thanked for their work.
Let me now deal with the Committee's specific recommendations, and the motion moved by the Leader of the House. I endorse the report as it stands, and I shall vote to accept all its recommendations: I think it important for us to endorse those recommendations, not least because this is a unanimous report from a Committee composed of hon. Members from both sides of the House, including some of our most senior colleagues.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Does my hon. Friend recall reports of a proposition that the Privileges Committee should conduct its proceedings in public, except where there is some compelling legal reason, more especially one that might involve a breach of natural justice? Does she agree with the opinion now widely held in all parties that the Committee of Privileges ought to come into the 20th century and conduct its proceedings—wherever possible, as I have said—in public, and not in secrecy?

Mrs. Taylor: The House may recall that when we debated that issue I said that I felt strongly—as I still do—that it would have been beneficial to everyone had the Committee sat in public as much as possible. The motion that we moved then was defeated, but I think that we shall have to consider issues such as that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in the future, although I do not think it appropriate to discuss the matter in detail now.
All who served on the Committee overcame their initial disagreements about whether it should sit in public, and performed their work extremely well. My right hon. Friend was among them, and I commend the details of the report to him. Partly because of all that work and partly because the report is unanimous, I do not think that we should set it aside lightly. It shows very clearly that the case made against the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) was strong, and that it convinced all members of the Committee. The House must accept, as does the report and as the motion states, that the conduct of those two hon. Members
fell below the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members",
and that a formal reprimand and suspension must follow.
I know that concern exists among some of my hon. Friends, who believe that the sanctions to be imposed are not adequate in the circumstances. They will be able to make their own case, if, Madam Speaker, they are able to catch your eye later. I must admit that I have some sympathy for those who want equity of treatment—[Interruption.] I have some sympathy for those who want parity of treatment for the two Members, but I personally will be supporting the specific recommendations of the Privileges Committee, as in the resolutions.
I heard a Conservative Member ask about The Sunday Times. I endorse—again, I know that some of my hon. Friends will disagree—what the report says about The Sunday Times, but it is extremely important to stress that


criticism of The Sunday Times does not detract in any way from the seriousness of the charges against those Members who are the subject of the report.

Mr. Alan Duncan: If the hon. Lady is interested in equity, does she agree that the sanctions introduced in the report are inequitable in that they apply only to Members of the House, and not the newspaper that perpetrated the set-up in the first place?

Mrs. Taylor: The Members concerned have clearly breached the rules of the House. Those rules and the obligations that we have as Members of Parliament are serious. I support the Committee's overall conclusions, which is why I am happy to vote for the suspensions this evening.
I want to say a word about The Sunday Times. It obviously felt that it had a legitimate right to act as it did. It felt that because of information given to it by business men saying that Members of Parliament accepted payments for tabling questions. The Sunday Times would be treated more sympathetically and more seriously by many Members if it reported such matters and such individuals to the House so that any necessary action could be taken.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Would the hon. Lady care to comment on the fact that the original allegations made by the unnamed business man to The Sunday Times concerned four hon. Members, and that The Sunday Times chose deliberately not to pursue those four, but, allegedly, to take a random sample of 20? Does she agree that it would have been more appropriate for it to have pursued those four, if indeed they ever existed?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether it is appropriate for The Sunday Times to pursue those Members. It is important that, if any individual, inside the House or outside it, has any evidence whatsoever that any Member is breaching the rules, that evidence should be presented in the first instance to the House. That is a straightforward principle that should apply throughout.

Dame Jill Knight: Does the hon. Lady agree that the fact that the four so-called Members who were not pursued in any way apparently still exist, and that The Sunday Times said that it knew who they were, throws a bad light on all hon. Members? None of us knows which four it is talking about.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Lady is right. Some questions are still unanswered. That fact, however, does not invalidate the report's findings and recommendations.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is not one of the problems with the House's recommendations the fact that the Press Complaints Commission has no sanctions to take against The Sunday Times? Unlike the British Medical Association, the Law Society, or even the Football Association, which can fine people, the commission has no sanctions, except to say, "Tut-tut," and to demand an apology. That is what it is going to do.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is exactly right. There are many wider issues to which we will have to return on some other occasions. Other issues surrounding the activities of the press will require greater consideration

over a long period of time, although some of the issues are not directly related to the cases that we are considering today. For example, the Privileges Committee report shows that there was deception by journalists, entrapment and bugging in the Palace of Westminster. We have seen similar techniques used to intrude into the private lives of hon. Members and others. Actions like that cannot be condoned.
I suggest that it is right to criticise the conduct of The Sunday Times in this instance as well as to criticise the conduct of the two hon. Members concerned who have now left the Chamber. We have many long-term lessons to learn from this unfortunate episode. We will shortly hear Lord Nolan's report, and the House will have a chance to draw its conclusions in respect of any changes that need to be made to our proceedings. The Privileges Committee report is extremely helpful to the House. The clarity of its recommendations is welcome and its suggestions should be supported by the House. I will vote for them this evening and I urge the House to do the same.

Mr. John Biffen: These are unhappy occasions for the House of Commons. It is quite clear that my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) have, as they said, committed errors of judgment. I might say that they were most breathtaking errors of judgment. However, ever since they have been Members of this House I have been pleased to operate with them as political colleagues. I must say that it is my experience that they have operated with total integrity. I have been pleased to call them hon. Friends, and that is my position this afternoon.
In what will be a very brief speech, I want to consider the broad issue, which is the extent to which outside interests either breach or conform with privilege. That is not something with which the House is particularly conversant. Most of our discussions hitherto have been to do with the reporting of Members' interests. Here we have an evaluation of that interest. As you said, Madam Speaker, you felt that there was an urgent need to clarify the law of Parliament. The Privileges Committee said that it was unable to fulfil that remit because the task that it already had was very considerable and there was the impending likelihood of the results of the Nolan report.
We have an attenuated report against what was originally supposed by many hon. Members. However, it was perfectly legitimate for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to complain that two hours is a ludicrously inadequate time to consider an issue of this moment. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said:
there is an agreement between the usual channels that the time allotted will be two hours".—[Official Report, 18 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 28.]
I have not come here to be adversarial. However, we have ahead of us the Nolan and Scott reports, which will go to the very heart of what are proper relationships and conduct in this House of Commons. Whatever is agreed by the usual channels is not necessarily appropriate for what is a genuine House of Commons interest—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should stand up and say that I used not to say that. I have stood here


and I have stood at the Front Bench and I have conducted whatever task I had to conduct with a very lively commitment and interest in respect of the House of Commons generally.
I will not enter a discussion or make a judgment on what has been proposed in the report because my time is too short. None the less, I am much concerned about whether this Privileges Committee approach is the most appropriate for making judgments in these circumstances. I am talking not about privileges generally, but about privileges where they relate to the outside financial interest of members, as is the case in this instance. If Lloyd George said that war was too serious to be left to generals, the conduct and the investigation of these matters is too serious to be left merely to parliamentarians, however distinguished. I welcome the fact that Nolan is seeking to broaden the terms of consideration of these matters.
I should like to mention three areas in which the remit of a Committee which is investigating such matters could reasonably be widened. First, I have come to the conclusion—not initially, but certainly now—that the Committee should take evidence in public wherever that is practical. Secondly, inspired by Nolan, the Committee should go wider than the membership merely of Members of Parliament. Thirdly, those under investigation should have representation and a right of cross-examination.
I do not say for one moment that a Committee thus. constituted would have come to different conclusions in this instance—I do not make that judgment—but the whole issue of the missing tapes and the whole issue of the letter contained in appendix A, which has been the subject of an exchange earlier this afternoon, would take on a different context and would have helped the House to have made a more balanced judgment.
As this debate proceeds, and with Nolan it inevitably will, there will be a realisation that the legitimacy and the definition of outside interests will mean a clarity that is much more focused than is provided this afternoon. Indeed, I go so far as to say that I believe that, eventually, we will end up with a framework of law for considering such matters. I was very encouraged to hear the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) making that point on the radio this morning.
Sooner or later, such matters will not be sensibly resolved within the arcane and historic practices of this Chamber. They call for a different form of consideration, and the law is the most satisfactory, for at least there is the chance of equity being secured and there is the chance of the scales being held equally. There is not the likelihood of passing political climate being an oppressive factor in the judgment that is made of those under investigation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Biffen: No. I have said that I would be brief, and I hope to hold to the promise.
The House is at its best when it is trying to make equitable judgments and not fashion punishment.

Mr. John Morris: I, too, shall be brief in commending the report of the Committee on which I

served—a unanimous report of the 17 Committee members. May I say two or three sentences on why it took us so long to produce it?
I regret that, in fairness to the three hon. Members and to the newspaper concerned, we were unable to sit when the House was in recess. The moment we were appointed, we sat until the very hour—3 o'clock—that the House went into recess. We were a large Committee of 17 members. Perhaps in future the House will want to consider whether membership should be smaller.
We were evenly balanced, and every effort was made by the authorities and by the Leader of the House to ensure that every Committee Member could attend. That was not easy. Every member of the Committee attended every sitting of the Committee. It was important, in view of the balance, that that was so. Perhaps in future a smaller Committee could dispense speedier justice and be empowered to sit in the recess.
We also lost some time because of the anxiety of many members of the Committee to sit in public to take evidence. I certainly regret that we did not do so. It might appear very odd to the outside world that Lord Nolan can hear evidence on matters that are not dissimilar to those that we heard, yet we decided not to sit in public. I hope that future Committees will bear in mind our experience and will carefully consider the dangers, if any, of not doing what Lord Nolan has seen fit to do—sitting in public.
I hope that I speak on behalf of all members of the Committee in saying that cross-examining colleagues was not a happy experience: I say no more than that. We took a very serious view, as the report shows, of the conduct of two hon. Members. We considered all precedents and adjudicated on—in my view and, more important, in the Committee's view—proper sentences of suspension, varying in length, and an additional formal reprimand in each case. The Committee found that the conduct of two colleagues fell below the standard expected of hon. Members. We recommend the finding to the House. I for one regard the reprimand as being of particular importance, as I am sure does the Committee as a whole.
We found that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) acted unwisely and that he committed an error of judgment. He was very frank, however, about his role and conduct, and his evidence epitomised the view that, I hope, right hon. and hon. Members of all parties would take. The hon. Gentleman was asked:
If anyone offered you £1,000 for putting down a Parliamentary Question, whatever way it was dressed up as, either as a straight question or anything of that kind or any talk about a consultancy, you would, in your own mind, think it was a wrong thing to do?
He replied:
Yes, I do. I think it is very wrong.
That certainly gave me a great deal of assistance in confirming the view that all members of the Committee took of what the Leader of the House described a few moments ago.
It should not be forgotten that 17 other hon. Members had no truck with the proposal put to them, whatever the form of the proposal: not for one moment did they give it a moment's thought. In addition to the frank comments of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, that should sum up the reaction of all of us on the Committee.
I can speak only for myself about the way in which I distinguished between the punishments suggested for the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for


Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). We tried as best as we could to act fairly and judicially. It is for the House to decide whether we achieved that. I tried to draw as best as I could from knowledge of other fields as regards a person's manner and to what extent a person is entitled to some discount when he accepts responsibility, pleads guilty and asks for the mercy of the House.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley accepted responsibility and pleaded guilty immediately in a debate in the House in July. He conceded three points: first, his lack of judgment; secondly, that it was unwise even to have considered—I emphasise those words—doing what was asked of him; and, thirdly, he apologised for the trouble caused. If he had left it there, he would been very much wiser. Unfortunately, he wrote a letter to the Committee as recently as 3 March. I hope—this matter was raised a little earlier—that right hon. and hon. Members will read that letter, which appears on page 182 in appendix 13.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley cannot have been advised to write as he did. If he was, it was very bad advice indeed. He expressed the following view:
I wish to emphasise my strong belief that I was not in breach of Parliamentary privilege.
Unhappily, he has been found to be so.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster): May I put two' points to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that letter? First, we must draw a distinction between my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) believing himself to be in breach of privilege and accepting that he had acted extremely foolishly. At that stage, he agreed to the latter, but not the former. The House has found otherwise. Secondly, in his letter my hon. Friend asked that the Committee see him again if it were minded to find him in breach of privilege. The Committee did not do so. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why?

Mr. Morris: The Committee certainly considered that matter. It is not for me to go further than what is set out in the report, but I can assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that the letter was certainly considered, account was taken of the request and the view of the Committee was that the evidence that we had heard was adequate to reach a decision. That letter, which appears on page xxi of our report, was read very closely and that is why the Committee invited the House to put it into the balance. In my view—I may be wrong—I fear that that letter, taken as a whole, goes a long way to undermine the apology first tendered to the House. It was unwise—regrettably—that the hon. Member sent that letter.
We were then left—certainly as far as I was concerned—with the other point that could have mitigated any sentence proposed for the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The hon. Gentleman had concluded, before he was exposed, that the transaction was improper and he had returned the cheque at the earliest opportunity. In my judgment, although the offence itself was abundantly proved, as set out in our conclusions, the hon. Member was entitled to have those circumstances taken into account in mitigation of any penalty proposed. That was certainly how my mind worked in reaching the view that the hon. Gentleman's sentence should be less than that of the hon. Member for Bosworth.
We took the view that the conduct of The Sunday Times fell substantially below the standards expected of legitimate journalism. I have read many of the comments and leading articles and I suspect that all of them—at least all that I have read, although the list may not be complete—ignored the word "substantially", which was deliberately included in the Committee's report. That word was ignored and it was merely stated what we recommended and that we found that the newspaper's conduct fell below the standards expected. It fell substantially below the standard required and I wish that some comment had been made about that.

Sir Peter Tapsell: While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is on that point, will he explain to me and to the House how he reconciles the failure of the Committee-to insist on an answer from the editor of The Sunday Times to the questions that were put to him about revealing the name of the business man and the four hon. Members against whom the allegations were made, with the statement on page 160, paragraph 11 of the report? That states that the House resolved
'That the refusal of a witness before a Select Committee to answer any question which may be put to him is a contempt of the House and an infraction of the undoubted right of this House to conduct any inquiry which may be necessary in the public interest'".
It follows a paragraph that refers to episodes in August 1947, when journalists refused to answer such questions before the Committee and were summoned to the Bar of the House, publicly questioned by the Speaker in front of the entire House and forced to reveal the information and to give an apology. Why was that not done on this occasion?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that the hon. Member would have wished to ask each and every one of the members of Committee that, from the Leader of the House down. I cannot go outside the matter before us; it would be wrong so to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Simply because the Committee did not sit in public. Had the Committee sat in public, perhaps the answer sought by the hon. Gentleman would have been clear and apparent. I for one fought hard to ensure that the Committee sat in public. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] That is my answer. In accordance with the resolution—

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris: No, I shall not give way again.
In accordance with the resolution of the Committee, by which I am bound, I cannot go outside the terms of the report or reveal in any detail any particular discussion. I am sure that in saying that I would be supported by every member of the Committee.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris: No. I shall not give way again; I want to finish my speech.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Morris: Yes.

Mr. Skinner: One of the intriguing aspects is the fact that if The Sunday Times had said to one of the Tory Members, "Here's £10,000 to be a consultant to The


Sunday Times," they would have been able to declare that in the Register of Members' Interests and ask questions all year long. About 200 Tory Members are consultants, advisers and directors.

Mr. David Shaw: How many Labour Members?

Mr. Skinner: The public outside will want to know why more than 500 jobs are allocated to more than 200 Members, mainly Tories. Some of them have 10 or 11 jobs each, yet nothing is done about it.

Mr. Shaw: How many Labour Members? How much did the hon. Gentleman's flat cost?

Mr. Skinner: If, as a result of the debate today, all those moonlighting jobs are excluded, we shall have done the country a service—one Member of Parliament, one job.

Mr. Shaw: How much did the union pay for the hon. Gentleman's flat?

Mr. Skinner: Do not be daft.

Mr. Morris: If I may be allowed to continue, Madam Speaker, I can tell my hon. Friend that he has made his point. I am sure that he will want to read the report most carefully.
We were cognisant of the fact that Lord Nolan will cover some of the matters concerned. Secondly, in accordance with your more general remit, Madam Speaker, which goes wider than the particular conduct of the three Members and the newspaper, we intend to return to those matters in due course when Lord Nolan has reported. I am sure that the Committee will wish to consider some of the matters raised in my hon. Friend's intervention.

Mr. Bill Michie: May I re-emphasise the fact that on more than one occasion the Committee discussed the problem of whether to sit in private or in public? If everything had been done in public, the questions being asked of my right hon. and learned Friend would have been irrelevant. One cannot ask more of some of the members, including my hon. Friends and the Liberal Democrat member, than that they plead with the Committee to sit in public. The Nolan committee was sitting in public, there was suspicion and we claimed transparency, yet still that did not happen. Given that it was forced to sit in private, members of the Committee should not be blamed for not having reached the right decision, and people should not say that we are not prepared to make the right statement.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming what I said earlier.
I want to bring my remarks to a close. Before I gave way, I was saying that the word "substantially" as applied by the report to The Sunday Times had been ignored. Of course The Sunday Times caught the fish in question, based on a line of inquiry emanating from the observations of an unknown business man. The House may wish to pass further comment as to whether the agreement between The Sunday Times and the business man should have been reached at all, and to develop that subject further.
Following those events, if our recommendations are accepted, the two Members are to be punished. They were caught through entrapment. Nothing was known against the 20 Members that The Sunday Times tried to seduce. Two happened to be caught with the bait, yet although five and a half months had passed between the business man's tip and the start of The Sunday Times inquiry, no evidence was found about any other Member. The newspaper went back to other sources, asking business men and people concerned with public relations, yet no evidence other than rumour was discovered. The Sunday Times told us that, by the terms of the agreement, it was forbidden to investigate the four names that the business man had given it. Two of our colleagues were caught by the bait.
I suspect that if a policeman had used the methods employed by The Sunday Times, shock and horror would have been expressed in leading articles in more than one newspaper. An agent provocateur, according to the recent royal commission, is one who
entices another to commit an express breach of the law which he would not otherwise have committed".
The agent provocateur has been disapproved of over the years by judges, even though the fact that a person would not have committed the offence had it not been for the activities of the agent provocateur is no defence in English law. Entrapment through deception should be disapproved of, and I echo that sentiment. The taking of clandestine recordings within the precincts of the House may well undermine the bond of trust built up over the years between Members of Parliament and the lobby. That bond acts as a lubricant to ensure that news reaches the public under many guises. We all value it. I join in placing our report before the House for its earnest consideration.

Sir Cranley Onslow (Woking): I am conscious that you want us to be brief, Madam Speaker, and although a lot has been said on which I would like to comment, I shall forbear. I simply say that tribute should be paid to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his patience and skill in chairing the Committee. We found ourselves in a most unhappy situation, with a most disagreeable duty to perform.
I shall confine the rest of my speech to the conduct of The Sunday Times Insight team and its editor. I shall take as my text the editorial that appeared in that newspaper on 9 April under the headline, "Don't shoot the messenger". It set its own tone at the beginning, by saying:
The whingeing of a small rump of Tory MPs last week over the outcome of the cash-for-questions affair made a sad spectacle.
It continued by saying that Members of Parliament, "predictably", had
sought to muddy the waters with complaints about entrapment and agents provocateurs.
It was fitting, then, that the verdict on the affair came not from us, but from their fellow MPs",
from a body that the editorial described as
The privileges committee, a self-regulating cross-party body".
I am sure that many colleagues will have read that editorial, and will have shared my surprise that it did not say that the Privileges Committee report specifically found that there was entrapment. The right hon. and


learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has endorsed that fact, and it is not to the credit of The Sunday Times that it suppressed it.
In the 1,000 or fewer words of the editorial I find more cause to take offence at the newspaper's reaction, and at the considered and careful self-justification that The Sunday Times has inflicted on its readers. The editorial refers to
the practice of MPs accepting money for putting down parliamentary questions",
and the newspaper's anonymous business man sought to persuade its readers that that was a common practice.
Anyone who reads the evidence that the Committee attaches to its report will see that there is no support whatever for the proposition that that is a common practice. Indeed, when Mr. Witherow was forced into a corner under examination, he was obliged to admit that all the research that The Sunday Times had carried out with its computer proved nothing of the sort.
However, in spite of our findings, the fiction is still maintained. I find it most regrettable that that respectable newspaper should have brought a stinking mess to the door of the House of Commons and then refused to help the Privileges Committee to clear it up.
The editorial goes on to state that
our reporters and editor freely gave evidence
to the Privileges Committee—"up to a point, Lord Copper", as Evelyn Waugh said. Anyone reading the evidence will see the stubborn refusal of the editor and his colleagues to help the Committee by identifying the alleged anonymous source. When pressed on the matter, witnesses took refuge behind the journalistic equivalent of the fifth amendment. I have sympathy with the anger that has been expressed about that point.
I must also point out that the editorial makes no mention of the Committee's conclusion that the agreement between The Sunday Times and the business man that prevented investigation of allegations against the four Members was not in the public interest. That, too, was carefully suppressed. The editorial claimed that the actions of The Sunday Times
have now been investigated by both the privileges committee and the newspaper industry's own watchdog, the Press Complaints Commission.
The editorial states that the PCC is chaired by Lord Wakeham, a former Conservative Minister. There is no doubt that an inference is meant to be drawn from that statement. However, it is misleading as, at the material time, Lord Wakeham was not chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. That is, at the least, an example of gross carelessness by The Sunday Times.
Although we concluded in the report that the Press Complaints Commission should be invited to reconsider the matter again in the light of the evidence that we took, there is no mention of that in the editorial. I find that surprising, given the movement in the evidence of the editor when he appeared before us and his statement in a letter to the PCC on 13 July. I find it difficult to conclude that this is not another attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the PCC and the public.
The conclusion of the editorial refers to the
urgent task of rebuilding public confidence in MPs and in parliament itself.

We would all endorse that, and we hope that Lord Nolan's report will contribute to that task. There is no mention in The Sunday Times of the damage that has been done to the reputation of Parliament by its editor. That may be too much to expect from an editor who recently lent his columns to an attempt to assassinate the character and reputation of Michael Foot.
Journalists on The Sunday Times—including Michael Jones, a respected lobby correspondent—will no doubt claim an important part in rehabilitating the reputation of the House. I regard the editorial that The Sunday Times printed on 9 April as nothing more than the editor pouring a bucket of whitewash over himself. He may feel that he and his colleagues in this miserable business deserve our praise and congratulations. No one reading the evidence and the report could possibly share that view.

Mr. David Alton: The right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) spoke for all members of the Committee in his remarks regarding the four Members whose identities were consistently concealed by The Sunday Times during the information that it gave to the Committee. I concur with what he said in that regard.
At the outset, may I commend the motion that is before the House to all Members? May I also thank the Leader of the House for the scrupulously fair way in which he dealt with the inquiry and the way in which he conducted the proceedings of the Committee? It would have been to the advantage of Parliament if the public could have seen those proceedings. If they had seen the fair way in which the Committee conducted the inquiry, it would have done a great deal to restore the reputation of Parliament. I agree with what the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), said on that matter.
The Committee has painstakingly discharged its responsibilities both to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House. I believe that hon. Members would be most unwise to begin to unravel the carefully constructed series of recommendations. The duties of the Committee were twofold. First, to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing by two hon. Members and the methods used by The Sunday Times in gathering the information. Secondly, we had to consider the damage which undoubtedly has been done to Parliament and its reputation, and to see how our procedures might be changed to minimise the risk of a repetition.
The report inevitably deals only with the first part of that remit. The Committee must now go on to consider the referral by the House of Peter Preston and The Guardian, and then to examine the guidelines for future conduct. The Committee will also want to draw on Lord Nolan's recommendations.
What may be usefully said at this stage? First, I would like to refer to the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). I do not think that there is any disagreement in the House, or by the hon. Members themselves, that they fell below the standards which the House has a right to expect of us all. It is right that they should be formally reprimanded.
I also think that it is right that we recognise the degree of culpability involved. That is what the motion seeks to do, by, in one case, talking about 10 days and, in the other


case, talking of 20 days. The Committee came to that conclusion because there was an initial apology, although the subsequent letter did not help in case of the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) suggested that it was the sort of letter a solicitor might have recommended. I would sack a solicitor who made that recommendation to me if I were his client. To send a letter to members of the Committee at that stage did nothing to assist the hon. Gentleman's case, but the fact remains that the hon. Gentleman returned the cheque and apologised to the House. There is a question of degree which the House must recognise.
Amendments before us seek to expel the two Members concerned. This fails to recognise—as members of the public may do—the seriousness of what will happen to the two hon. Members. Both of them were parliamentary private secretaries, and both may well have aspired to become Ministers. They are surely now in a position where their careers have been gravely damaged and probably endangered beyond repair. The former hon. Member for Winchester, John Browne, faced deselection as a result of a similar decision by the House, and there is no doubt that the seriousness and gravity of what the House may decide to do today in the case of the hon. Members for Colne Valley and for Bosworth will have profound effects on them in their constituencies.
It is a draconian measure to place the sanction of expulsion in the hands of the majority against what may appear to be a troublesome minority, and all hon. Members must think carefully about the use of such a weapon, which may one day be used in other circumstances—perhaps against them. Expulsion is a sanction that should be used by the electors and I do not believe that it would be appropriate to use it in this case.
I turn now to the case of The Sunday Times. Where allegations of financial corruption are involved, the right to subterfuge must be a legitimate weapon for any newspaper to have in its armoury. But there are ways in which that may be used. All of us feel uneasy about the breakdown in relations which has occurred between journalists and hon. Members as a result of people using concealed tape recorders when they come to talk to Members of Parliament.
It was unwise for The Sunday Times to enter into an agreement with its source—although no one would expect it to reveal the name of that source—not to reveal the names of the four Members of Parliament against whom the original allegations were made. That leaves a slur over every Member of Parliament, and those Members ought to have been brought to book. It also ought to be remembered that 17 of the 20 hon. Members who were originally approached refused to have anything to do with the plan whatsoever. That reflects well on the vast majority of Members of the House.

Mr. Shaw: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a Member of the other place stated to the Financial Times that four Members of Parliament had taken cash for questions? I complained—as did Madam Speaker—that that Member of the upper House should be brought to the Bar of this House and forced to name the four Members.
I understand that that Member of the upper House is a lawyer and a Queen's Counsel who has acted for Mohamed Al Fayed. The obvious implication, although we have no evidence to prove it, is that the same four people who were displayed in The Sunday Times are those

that Mr. Al Fayed seeks to name. There is not a shred of evidence to prove that the accusation by Mr. Al Fayed and Lord Lester is true.

Mr. Alton: There are two points here. The first concerns my hon. Friend, Lord Lester. I made it absolutely clear when he made his allegation that it would have been better if he had said who those allegations were being made against. So my view about Lord Lester is precisely the same as it is about The Sunday Times. The second point is about Mohamed Al Fayed. Members of the Privileges Committee—this is not a matter of secrecy because we have motions before the Committee—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: They are in the minutes of evidence.

Mr. Alton: As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says, the issue is referred to in the minutes of evidence. Members of the Privileges Committee will have a chance to vote on a motion that I tabled requiring Mr. Al Fayed to come before the Committee during the next round of our proceedings, when Mr. Peter Preston of The Guardian is brought before us. I hope that every member of the Committee will vote for that motion so that the questions that have just been raised can be put to Mr. Mohamed Al Fayed and we can get to the truth of this matter once and for all.
The second matter that I wanted to discuss briefly is the damage to Parliament's collective reputation. The issue of lobbying came out in the minutes of evidence, where it was revealed that one of the hon. Members concerned received £12,000 a year from the Brewers Society to act on its behalf. Hon. Members must ask themselves what is the moral or practical difference between receiving £12,000 a year to act on behalf of an outside lobbyist, vested interest or commercial group and receive £12,000 during the course of a year to table,say, 12 parliamentary questions, and receiving £1,000 for tabling one parliamentary question. We shall have to look at that general issue in much greater detail, as we will at the transparency of the Register of Members' Interests. There is no compulsion to reveal in the register the details of the £12,000 to which I just alluded and it is high time that there was such a compulsion.

Mr. Bill Michie: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that not only was £12,000 paid for a consultancy but that, before the hon. Member concerned would reveal how much it was, he said, "Only a small amount"? If £12,000 is a small amount, goodness knows what is happening.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman makes the point very well. The fact was that the hon. Member was not prepared to admit how much money he had received. That should be a matter of public declaration as everyone has a right to know.
It is impossible for parliamentarians to serve two masters. We are elected to serve our constituents and our consciences. We are here to pursue causes and I am deeply suspicious of anyone who is here to pursue anything other than a cause. People who are here to pursue vested interests place themselves in an impossible position; we should sever that umbilical cord.
At the very minimum, Parliament should consider requiring all candidates at parliamentary elections to state, in the literature that is delivered free by the Post Office to the homes of all their constituents, details of their


declarations of financial interests so that every elector knows precisely who those candidates seek to serve. Secondly, if a Minister resigns or retires from ministerial office, there should be a firebreak between the time that he or she has been in that office and the time at which he or she takes up subsequent financial interests.
Thirdly, we should consider the issue of self regulation. There is a case for an outside body on ethics in public life and penalties should be much tougher. It should be a criminal offence to try to bribe a Member of Parliament, which in many respects would deal with the problem that we have had to face in this case.
There is also a case for much more openness in our proceedings. I was one of those who supported holding the proceedings of the Privileges Committee in public. Everything that has occurred during the course of those proceedings confirms the view that I put, along with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and many others, when those matters were first considered. We said that it would be better for all of us if the issue were dealt with in the open rather than hidden away because that would only add to the impression held by people outside that we are looking after our own privileges and interests rather than their interests.
This whole sorry business has been a tragedy for all involved, and the sooner it is put behind us the better it will be—so long as lessons have been learnt.

Mr. Michael Alison: I am glad that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) ruled out the option of the sanction of expulsion that has been tabled as an amendment. I wish to go further in the opposite direction and put on record how mistaken—indeed, unfair—I believe the Privileges Committee has been in recommending so severe a penalty as suspension with incidental loss of salary for my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).
The effect of indictment against my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, whose case I am particularly anxious to support, is contained in paragraph 51 of the report before us, where my hon. Friend is charged with
a serious error of judgement".
I do not dissent from that verdict, as it was a serious error of judgment and my hon. Friend has admitted as much, but we must put that error of judgment in a reasonable perspective.
As we all know, the background to the case was the efforts of The Sunday Times to establish a close and crude cash-for-questions nexus—the alleged going rate of a thousand quid a question. But it is clear from the delphic and convoluted proposals which Mr. Calvert made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth that he could not bring himself to pop the question crudely, directly and immediately as to whether my hon. Friend would be prepared to table a question for £1,000. It had to be dressed up in such a way as to lead my hon. Friend to believe that he was being offered a down payment for an on-going consultancy.
I admit that that may have been an error of judgment, but I ask the House to recognise that, if the tape recording which Mr. Calvert carried away from his encounter with

my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth had been of a crude question as to whether he would accept £1,000 to table a question, and if the tape in that form had fallen into the hands of the Privileges Committee, its verdict would probably have been not that it was a serious error of judgment but that that practice was gross and unacceptable. The Committee did not find that in its verdict, which was based on the clear impression which my hon. Friend received and conveyed in his exchanges with the Committee: that he was being offered something much less crude, draconian, immediate and limited than £1,000 to ask the question.
Under those circumstances, how much more reasonable is it that colleagues might make an error of judgment? [Interruption.] I do not conceal that it was an error of judgment, but I believe that The Sunday Times, by means of an elaborate, deliberate and technically adroit conspiracy to deceive my hon. Friend, had to establish that he was prepared to take £1,000 for asking a question. It could not, under any circumstances, allow the proposition to be dressed up in so crude a form because it knew that, had my hon. Friend been placed in that position, he would almost immediately have said, "You can't be serious. A thousand quid to ask one question?" [Laughter.] In spite of the mirth of Opposition Members, who do not take the approach that one might be considered innocent before one is proved guilty or that there might have been a genuine misunderstanding, which is exactly what the Privileges Committee has concluded, my hon. Friend would not have responded so crudely to such a crude offer.

Mr. David Ashby: My right hon. Friend will have heard the mirth of Opposition Members, who always exclaim that they are looking after those who are underprivileged. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we have set up rules to protect the public from agents provocateur that would never allow the evidence in the matter that we are discussing to be given and used in any way in a court of law? Why should Members of the House be treated any differently from the ordinary people whom they always try to protect? They seem to care; they do not care a damn.

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has made a fair and reasonable argument.
I return to the essential evidence that the House has to consider—that the verdict of the Committee of Privileges is that what has been found as a fault is a serious error of judgment, not a crude and unacceptable practice. As a serious error of judgment—a limited, but serious fault—I do not believe that it is reasonable, especially in view of the fact that the Committee of Privileges began that consideration as long ago as July of last year, and we are now reaching a conclusion on this case, nearly a year later, that in the light of the indictment that we have levelled at my hon. Friend, it is now fair, nearly 12 months later, to produce a full and unmodified verdict of suspension.
To use an analogy, in many criminal cases—this case is obviously entirely non-criminal—outside the House, where someone has been put on remand against the suspicion that a crime may have been committed, when a sentence is passed, consideration is given to the lapse of time that the individual has already suffered as a penalty in prison. I believe that it is right that the House should take into consideration the fact that my two hon. Friends


have had to wait nearly 12 months—[Interruption.]—against the background of suspicion and accusation, to await the verdict of the House. It is reasonable, under those circumstances, that the original indictment should be modified in terms of the penalty that is envisaged, and that we should reduce it to a simple, straight reprimand.

Mr. John Garrett: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that, if his hon. Friends had been offered what he calls an ongoing consultancy, under the terms of which they would have been able, or required, to ask a series of parliamentary questions at £1,000 a time, it would have been perfectly satisfactory? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Hon. Members must control themselves.

Mr. Alison: In response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, that would have been a serious error of judgment in my book. However, I do not believe that one can evaluate and make a judgment about what any other hon. Member might take the offer to be until the full offer and all the implications have been fully and properly spelt out, which they obviously had not been in this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth is guilty of a serious error of judgment; no more than that. He has had to wait for nearly 12 months, with all the uncertainty and pain that that causes. Now that we are delivering the verdict, it is appropriate that we should reduce the penalty, make it a straight reprimand and give him the same fairness that the courts, at the behest of the House, give to prisoners who have been placed on remand and have had to suffer a long time in prison before their sentence is delivered. Let us reduce the sentence and make it a straight reprimand.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next right hon. Gentleman, I point out that it is a very short debate and a very serious one. Many right hon. and hon. Members are hoping to speak, and even 10–minute speeches are too long in this particular case.

Mr. Tony Benn: I wonder whether the House realises the real problem that faces it, which is not two Members who can be disposed of. We have no standards; that is the problem. We talk about Members falling below the standards expected—what are the standards expected? Is it that marvellous phrase, "conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman"? Is that what they mean by standards? What are the standards? The House has no standards. Until we have standards—and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) endorsed the idea that I suggested about the legal position—we are in difficulty.
The Committee talks about investigative journalism falling below the standard expected. I did not think that anyone could be below the standard of investigative journalism of Mr. Rupert Murdoch. Have other Members experienced conduct far worse than that? I certainly have.
The Committee of Privileges met in secret. It did not want anyone to know what it was discussing. The fact that it is an unanimous report made my hair stand on end. Is there no difference between the two sides of the House

on what is acceptable and what is unacceptable? Is there no difference? Was there no opportunity for someone to argue that the standards should be this or that? It was not mentioned at all.
I cannot vote for the report. I shall not vote against it, but I shall not vote for the report because it does not tackle the real question, which is, what should the standards be that we impose—I believe that it should be by law—on Members of Parliament?
The Nolan committee has been mentioned. I gave evidence to Nolan, because we must take our opportunities when they arise. But what the Prime Minister did was to take the matter out of the House of Commons by using the royal prerogative—which gives him the power to set up a commission—and thereby degut the Committee of Privileges, and then Nolan actually heard evidence in public.
I am not a bit interested—as I said from the beginning—in the two hon. Members. A newspaper lied, they fell for the bait and the trouble that was caused for them has already been caused by what has happened. So I have never been in favour of pursuing the two hon. Members—I have said that very many times. But I am interested in knowing what Members of the Committee of Privileges said to one another about standards.
I wanted the report of the debate to be public. I wanted to hear what hon. Gentlemen said, because that is what is of value. We are told that there was unanimous support. There is a theory that, if a thing is unanimous, it must be better. I have never believed that; otherwise we would not have debates and votes in the House. We must offer people a choice. That is the argument that I want to make.
It should be straightforward. Certain things should be legal and certain things should be illegal. I said this in the House—if I pay someone to vote for me in an election, I am guilty of an offence, I am taken to the election court and I may be unseated. We should have similar rules about the work of Members of Parliament.
It is not the moment to discuss what the standards should be, because I promised to speak for two or three minutes, but if the House thinks that it can solve the problem by holding a two-hour debate by agreement between the usual channels, it is an outrage. The matter is of great importance, and it is not about protecting Parliament.
I am not here to protect Parliament. It is not a club that I have joined, which I wish to protect. I am here to protect my constituents, and I want Parliament to ensure, as best it can, that it serves my constituents. The whole thing is the most ghastly whitewash and cover-up of the real question. Until we tackle the real question and put it on a legal basis, we can go on—

Sir David Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Benn: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I promised to sit down after three minutes and I shall do that.
We should tackle the real question; we should not leave it to Nolan. I am very disappointed that the Privileges Committee unanimously agreed about something that never really tackled the question.
As for the two hon. Members, I am not a bit interested in them because I think that they have done themselves about as much damage as any two Members could have done by their conduct.

Sir Giles Shaw: In following the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I respect his opinions about those matters. I also recognise the amount of time that it took to get the Privileges Committee on the go, in view of the objections of the right hon. Gentleman to our sitting in private. I think that if we sit in private on that matter—or in public in future—we must ensure that proper provision is made for Members to have the type of assistance that is necessary in a normal court of law.
I do not think that anyone on the Committee of Privileges enjoyed the task that was allotted to us by the House. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the way in which he steadied our affairs along.
I wish to add three simple arguments to what has been said. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) came first to the House to apologise clearly for what had occurred in relation to what he considered to be falling below the standards of the House. We accepted that then and we accept it now. I am proud to call him my hon. Friend and I look forward to canvassing in his constituency at the next election on his behalf, if he wishes. Having gone that far, it is important that the Committee should be able to set out clearly what it was that occurred and how that apology—if I may put it that way—was rightly earned. But difficulties arose from it.
Throughout the procedures, we have been dealing, not with an ordinary course of accident, deliberate fraud or someone deliberately flouting the rules of the House, but an elaborate entrapment procedure that caught the Members in the net. I fully supported the report, and if I earn the displeasure of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) for so doing, that will give me a touch of credibility. But the fact that we were unable to find a suitable way of dealing with the activities of The Sunday Times is a matter of great personal regret. I recognise that the Committee was wise in trying to avoid the electric scenes of people coming to the Bar of the House. Such scenes would have created more joy and happiness among the press than a more rational and orthodox way of dealing with the matter. However, that issue has to addressed.
A reference has been made to the Press Complaints Commission. A clear sign has been given that such journalism, with professional and well-trained journalists becoming liars for the week, is not acceptable. We must find a way of dealing with that problem to restore the relationship between Members of Parliament and the press, who seek to get whatever evidence they can from us, on whatever issue, to increase the circulation of their newspapers. It is crucial that we address that matter quickly.
The episode has taught us all a lot. I sincerely hope that the House of Commons will regain its self-respect by not trying to elaborate on the problems that it has faced. It must recognise that there was a most unusual series of events caused by an extraneous force trying to find proof of an allegation. The newspaper was unable to find any evidence in support of the allegations against the four Members and the tabling of questions. After six months of computer analysis not a shred of evidence was found, and the matter should have been stopped there. The newspaper should have known that.

Mr. David Winnick: I support the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges regarding the two Members. I believe that the recommendation is sound and I shall vote for it in the Division, if there is one.
I do not agree with the strictures on The Sunday Times. It may be a minority view, but it is only right that another view should be advanced regarding The Sunday Times. Conservative Members have spoken in the debate as though the newspaper were in the dock, as though what it did was wrong and there was no public or legitimate interest involved. That view is clearly strongly held by Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends—I understand and accept that. But it is not held strongly, if at all, outside the House.
It is interesting that, apart from the Press Complaints Commission, which upheld and justified what had been done, few comments have been made outside the newspaper world along the lines that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and others—that what was done was wrong. Like other hon. Members, I read the evidence carefully. Leaving aside the issue of what The Sunday Times said in justification—about what it was told by a prominent business man about four Members of Parliament—if that newspaper came to the view that some hon. Members were tabling questions for money, what should it have done about that?
It could have dropped the investigation and said that there was no way that it could find out the facts. As the editor of The Sunday Times said in evidence, a newspaper reporter could have phoned up the hon. Members, but he went on to ask, what good would that have done? The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said in his evidence that, if he had been asked by a reporter whether he would take cash for questions, he would have given the answer that one would expect: no. No Member of Parliament, if phoned by a journalist, would give any other answer.
The Sunday Times therefore decided that there was likely to be some justification in the rumours that were circulating and set about its job accordingly. If, ultimately, The Sunday Times investigation had been carried out and found that no hon. Member was willing to take up its offer, we could all be proud of that. We could justify criticism of The Sunday Times and say that what it did was totally without justification. But surely the reason for today's debate is that The Sunday Times found two Members who—the Committee of Privileges has decided—acted wrongly. The two hon. Members involved have apologised for acting wrongly. However much of a minority view it is, I cannot see why The Sunday Times should be taken to task for carrying out an investigation that it believed to be in the public interest and that was justified by the Press Complaints Commission.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Winnick: I normally give way, but Conservative Members will have to forgive me if I do not give way now. Unfortunately, the debate is confined to just two hours and there is great pressure on time.
It gives me some satisfaction that, of the 20 Members who were contacted, at most three were found to be worthy of investigation—about one of whom the Privileges Committee came to another conclusion. It


should give us some satisfaction that the large majority of those contacted would not be involved and made that clear to those who rang them.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has rules about the declaration of interest when Members are speaking. If an hon. Member speaks in defence of a newspaper, should he not declare that in the Register of Members' Interests he declares payment by The Guardian and other fees from the media—as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) does?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All right hon. and hon. Members know the rules and it is up to each individual hon. Member to act as he thinks fit.

Mr. Winnick: Having had one article published in The Guardian, I went out of my way to ring up the Clerk of the Committee to ask whether, in view of my position in relation to The Guardian newspaper—which we are not debating today—I should declare my interest. The advice that I received was that it was not necessary to declare my interest in a newspaper as such. I went out of my way to put that entry in the register and I believe that I was justified in doing so. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Winnick: I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I think that the gist of his argument was that, in defending his constituents, he was concerned about standards in the House. We are not concerned simply about ourselves; we are concerned about the maintenance of parliamentary democracy. If there is a general feeling that we are all on the make and there is sleaze everywhere, people lose confidence in this place and in the democratic process. That is against our interests.
There has rightly been a great deal of criticism about some of the ways in which newspapers, without justification, have made allegations and published stories about the private lives of hon. Members, whether Conservative or Opposition Members. Only two weeks ago there was a disgraceful story about a Conservative Member that could not possibly involve public interest. Indeed, the newspaper did not try to maintain that there was a public interest element.
We condemn trivial rubbish, for which we know there is no justification, and which is published in tabloids for the most obvious of reasons and, unfortunately, taken up by the serious press. But we must make a distinction between sensational tabloid material that has no public interest and legitimate matters in the public interest—which was what The Sunday Times, justifiably, was trying to find out about. The Sunday Times was trying to discover whether hon. Members were willing to take cash for questions. That was a legitimate investigation and in the public interest, so I hold that there is no justification for taking The Sunday Times to task.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I have tabled the amendment in my name and in that of my hon. Friends because I believe that the punishment of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) should be reduced to a reprimand. The Privileges Committee's report about my hon. Friend bases its case on a single

distinction—the distinction between being paid for a question and tabling a question as part of a paid consultancy arrangement. That is implicit when it rightly says that there can be no distinction between being paid for tabling a question and a consultancy arrangement that only involves tabling a question.
I know that I am not alone in my view. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House wonder whether there can be such a clear distinction. However, the Committee had no choice but to make that distinction, because it has been accepted according to long-established precedent that hon. Members on both sides of the House have interests about which questions have been tabled from time to time. I have not done that myself, but I am raising no objection now to that practice.
If we accept that premise—I think that there are good reasons for wondering whether it is a sound one—we must then ask what are the facts of the case involving my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley. Did he or did he not think that he was tabling a question as part of a consultancy arrangement? The original meeting at which the arrangement was made took place on the Terrace of the House. Quite conveniently, it is the only conversation of which The Sunday Times has failed to produce a tape recording.
We know that The Sunday Times journalist concerned, Mr. Calvert, alleged initially that the meeting took only five minutes. Upon cross-examination by the Committee, he subsequently admitted that it could have taken half an hour. In such circumstances, I wonder how much weight should have been given to his testimony in my hon. Friend's case.
I shall shorten my case, as my time is limited. It has been alleged that my hon. Friend smelt a rat when he sent back the cheque. In fact, he carried out research first, not, as some hon. Members appear to believe, after he had received the cheque or after he had tabled the question. The hon. Gentleman did exactly what I would have done if, as a former business man, I were assisting a consultancy—although I would not have tabled a question. He went to Companies House to gather information about the company concerned. When I worked on takeover bids before my election to the House, I would begin my investigations at that point.
My hon. Friend agreed to table a question—that is the only point at which I disagree with his actions. I would not have tabled a question if I had a consultancy arrangement with a company—as many other hon. Members who have consultancy arrangements with businesses or trade unions have agreed to do in the past. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see justice done and we are currently considering an issue of individual justice.
A cheque subsequently arrived through the post and appended to it was the note, "Your payment for tabling a question." Although there had been an initial half-hour discussion about a consultancy arrangement, it was at that point that my hon. Friend realised that it was not a consultancy arrangement: it involved simply tabling a question. Within an hour or two, he put the cheque back in the post—long before anything was exposed.
My hon. Friend has admitted to an error of judgment, and I think that he made such an error. However, I believe that he is a man of the highest integrity and I am proud


that he is one of my colleagues. It is unbelievable that the Privileges Committee should propose to suspend him for 10 days over this matter.
I feel bound to put one final comment on the record. I have been a Member of Parliament for less than eight years and, as such, I do not expect my views to carry much weight. However, I was astonished that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is the Chairman of the Committee, did not give us any guidance about the substance of the case against my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley. I could not help contrasting his actions with the short speech that my noble Friend Lord Howe delivered in the much more grievous case involving the former Member for Winchester. In a few succinct sentences, Lord Howe gave the House clear guidance as to the substance of that case.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had difficulty giving guidance about the substance of the case against my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, because there is no substance to that case. I urge all hon. Members to support my amendment.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I tabled the amendment which appears on the Order Paper because I do not believe that the Privileges Committee's recommendations are strong enough. However, I will back the Committee's recommendations if my proposals do not receive the support of the House. I will certainly support the Committee's recommendations against the other amendments which have been tabled today which suggest that at least one, if not both, of the hon. Gentlemen involved should be let off.
On 13 July last year when we debated the issue, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that tampering, for whatever motive, with the right to ask questions should be dealt with severely by Parliament. I agree entirely with his comments. However, it is not simply a question of journalists or members of the public tampering with parliamentary procedure. As Members of Parliament, we should ensure that we do not tamper with or undermine the credibility of the tabling of parliamentary questions. I believe that the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) have tampered with our right to ask questions in the Chamber, and I agree that they should be dealt with severely.
When we table questions in the House, at public expense, people in the community should be confident that we do so as part of our duty as Members of Parliament and not in order to receive a fee. I am particularly concerned about the nature of the apology that the hon. Member for Colne Valley made to the House on 13 July last year. If hon. Members look closely at the letter submitted to the Privileges Committee by the hon. Gentleman on 3 March, they will see that he seems virtually to renounce his initial apology to the House. The letter states:
I wish to emphasise my strong belief that I was not in breach of Parliamentary privilege.

The hon. Gentleman puts up a robust defence of his actions and says:
A possible breach of privilege could only have occurred if I knowingly agreed to table a question in return for money. This I totally refute.
On 13 July last year, the hon. Gentleman said:
I accept that I made an error of judgment in agreeing to table a question and in agreeing initially to accept a fee".—[Official Report, 13 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 1026.]
There is no reason why the two hon. Gentlemen should be treated differently as result of what happened on the Terrace of the House or in the parliamentary precincts.
Outside the House, the hon. Member for Colne Valley is telling another story. He recently gave an interview to the Huddersfield Daily Examiner and the article stated that he was
relieved that the Committee did not say he was in breach of privilege, nor that he was in contempt of Parliament".
I do not believe that that is true. We are discussing the issue today because the Privileges Committee believes that the hon. Gentleman was in breach of the privileges that we enjoy as Members of Parliament. I believe that the electorate, and not necessarily the Parliament, should decide the future of the two hon. Gentlemen. The Nolan committee may reflect on whether we should sit in our own judgment in the future.
No talk about set-ups or secret taping by journalists, and no cries of underhanded tactics or entrapment, can justify the hon. Gentlemen's decisions to accept payment for tabling parliamentary questions. I do not defend the actions of the journalists concerned; I think that they were wrong. However, I defend the actions of those Members of Parliament on either side of the House who were also approached by journalists. Six Labour Members and four Conservative Members refused to table questions for a fee.
The hon. Members for Colne Valley and for Bosworth also had that option, but they did not say no. I am sure that the majority of hon. Members would refuse to table questions for a fee and, on that basis, I believe that the two hon. Gentlemen deserve the punishment which will be meted out to them today.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I shall comment briefly on the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate today has accepted that it is wrong to receive money in return for tabling questions. That principle was also accepted in the generous apologies of my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) with regard to this matter.
Beyond that, it is absolutely right that the House should debate our future conduct and that rules, Members' interests and so on should currently be a matter for the Nolan committee.
The motion is not even-handed. Recently, there have been several instances of the decline in the standards of modern journalism in The Sunday Times, The Guardian and others. They work on the principle that the ends will justify practically any means.
One has only to look at the report. It found that
the Sunday Times' conduct of its enquiries fell substantially below the standards to be expected of legitimate investigative journalism.


It also stated:
the taking of clandestine recordings is manifestly a contempt the House.
Another phrase leaps off the page:
This was clearly a form of entrapment through deception.
One Opposition Member used the word "seduction".

Sir Michael Marshall: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's views. He will be aware of my concern, as I feel some responsibility for referring journalists to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). Will he take into account two considerations? The first is the repeated use of the suggestion that a constituent had put the journalist in touch with the Members of Parliament concerned, and the second, which perhaps is not clear in the report, was the journalist's claim to be a friend of many Members of Parliament, including myself, which clearly influenced strongly the reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend's points are absolutely valid. It was not only a deception, but a deception planned in the most infinite detail by the journalist involved and based on a tissue of lies. We are asked to believe a theory that is based on evidence of people who have not been named—the men who never were. The report is redolent with observations and conclusions on the conduct of The Sunday Times.
In principle, I support the Committee's conclusions on the penalties on my hon. Friends, but only if an equivalent penalty is imposed on the newspaper involved. I see no reason why such sanctions should apply to my two hon. Friends, but not also to the newspaper, and that is why my amendment calls for journalists working for The Sunday Times to have their Lobby passes withdrawn for a period of 20 days.
It may assist the House to know that I do not intend formally to move the amendment standing in my name, but on that basis I cannot support the main motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: The references to The Sunday Times have been wide and varied, but there have been few references to the powers of the Press Complaints Commission, which are non-existent.
In the past three years we have considered the Calcutt report and the report of the National Heritage Select Committee on privacy and media intrusion, which dealt with the antics of the press. We have also seen what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was spending on his credit card flashed across the papers, Princess Di having intrusive cameras in the gymnasium and the royal family's telephones being bugged. The growth of electronic surveillance is totally out of control.
Even since the publication of the report, there was the incident reported in the News of the World two weeks ago. A woman had a tape recorder in her handbag when she met a Conservative Member of Parliament. Every word was recorded and splashed across the newspapers. There are no ground rules and no controls. There have been recommendations from the Calcutt committee and the Select Committee, but nothing has been done. I am critical

of the Government, but the Press Complaints Commission of knows that there must be some self-regulation and some ground rules. That is how every other organisation works.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashton: I am sorry, but there is not enough time.
The press breaks its own embargoes on the Queen's Speech. There is no question of the Press Complaints Commission fining or suspending anyone. There are picket lines on doorsteps as soon as anyone is in the news and an army of freelances invades people's houses.
The tactics of the press and the growth of electronic surveillance cannot be allowed to continue without some control. The British press now resembles the KGB, the Stasi and J. Edgar Hoover, and all the villains use the excuse of investigative journalism.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What could The Sunday Times have done?

Mr. Ashton: It could have gone to the police. It is amazing how often the police tipped off The Sunday Times when they were about to raid the house of Bruce Grobelaar when he was accused of taking a bribe. They work and collude together, but the victim has no recourse unless he has £500,000 to spend in the libel courts, which few people have.
In the two or three years since Calcutt and the Select Committee report, the Press Complaints Commission has refused to introduce ground rules in the same way as the British Medical Association and the Law Society have done, or self-regulation stating that it is not in favour of entrapment or of agents provocateurs.
A recent article in The Sun stated:
Colin Stagg, cleared of murdering Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common, is suing the police for malicious prosecution and wrongful arrest…after an Old Bailey judge condemned police over a trap set by an undercover girl detective to lure him into a confession.
The girl had carried a tape recorder and when the police produced the tape in court, the judge kicked out the evidence.
We now have one rule for the police and another for the press. The Select Committee report on the press stated that there should be no protection for Members of Parliament or any other famous people. It suggested that wd go into the arena, so we know what to expect, but even in an arena we expect some Marquess of Queensberry rules.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ashton: I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
There are no rules even in the House. Anyone connected with the press who comes into the House should wear a badge. At the Labour and Tory party conferences, members of the press have to wear a badge. How many times do we go into a bar in the House and talk to a strange face? We do not know who those people are and they do not introduce themselves. They have been banned from the Terrace because of the way in which they hounded hon. Members who were in the news, so they now resort to the subterfuge of going on to the Terrace with a microphone up their sleeve.
Why cannot the Committee of Privileges and the Press Complaints Commission get together and say that we shall accept the present method of lobbying, provided that there are Lobby rules in the House so that we know what is happening?
When members of the press ring me, I automatically assume that they have a tape recorder running at the other end of the telephone. I have taken three cases to the Press Complaints Commission—I won twice and lost once—and the telephone conversation was produced every time. Everyone should be aware that the growth of electronic technology is such that it has produced not the freedom of the press, but the unlicensed tyranny of the press, which newspapers abuse regularly to denigrate democracy in the House and increase circulation.

Mr. David Evans: It is important for debates in a national Parliament to reflect the central cultures of the nation that it aims to represent, so today's debate must be reflecting the time-honoured British custom of hypocrisy.
The Sunday Times, once a great national paper, is reduced to gutter reporting. Everybody in the nation and everybody in the House knows perfectly well what those journalists were doing. They used totally different approaches to Conservative and Labour Members. One minute they were talking about offers of a public affairs contract, the next they were having a conversation on the Terrace about consultancy and then, when the Committee asked for a very important tape—the House will not believe this—they lost the tape. They think that we all come out the Thames in a biscuit tin.
It seems, however, that there is a gulf of difference in the way in which Members register how they sell their services. What is the definition of long or short-term consultancy work? What is the definition of consultancy work? Surely those are two of the central questions that we should be asking.
We should consider also establishing a suitable means of adjudicating on alleged cases of corruption and misuse of privilege. If a Member's memory falls foul of the hazy House of Commons guidelines, he must undergo a trial by a kangaroo court. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) returned the cheque on the same day that he received it. He believed that the transaction could be classed as a short-term consultancy. After checking the details of the transaction more thoroughly, he felt, as he put it—this was on reflection—that it would be inappropriate for him to accept the cheque. He made a mistake and he did everything in his power to remedy it as quickly as possible. He apologised to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
In my opinion, my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley acted as honourably as he could after he had discovered that he had made an error of judgment. Somehow that is not good enough. The Committee of Privileges still wishes to punish him. The Committee classed my hon. Friend's concept of short-term consultancy as a breach of privilege even though there are no clear guidelines.
It is not only Members who sell their services. We know that entire political parties sell their souls and their policies for financial reward. For a start, take that lot over there on the Opposition Benches. Why is it that 175 Opposition Members, including the entire Opposition Front Bench, are sponsored by unions? Why is that? It is done so that Labour Members can table questions on behalf of unions day in, day out, to look after their unions' interests.
Why does the Labour party raise £8.5 million a year? Half of it comes from its unions so that it can look after their interests. That is why Labour Members table questions day in, day out in this place.
Why is the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, who is better known as Bambi or the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Oratory), so eager to explain to the British public that
trade unions will have no special or privileged place within the Labour Party"?
How is it that such wanton hypocrisy is allowed to go unpunished?
Labour does not confine itself to exercising hypocrisy in accepting favours from the unions. The Labour leadership campaign provides an example. Three former London Weekend Television executives paid and fund-raised most of the £79,000 required for Bambi to become the leader of the Labour party. Those executives all made millions out of share option schemes. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has been trying to make sanctimonious scandal out of share option schemes. Does not that seem a little like double standards? Why was not the £79,000—

Madam Speaker: Order. We have had an amusing couple of minutes, but I must bring the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) to the motion that we are debating, which is set out on the Order Paper. Perhaps he will return to the motion and the amendments that are before us.

Mr. Evans: The double standards in this place are there for all to see. Have any of us never made a mistake? We have all made mistakes. When we pass through the Lobbies, we shall see the ones who claim that they have never made a mistake. We shall see which Lobby they pass through.
I do not condone the actions of the Members in this matter, but rather than make scapegoats of them so as to brush a problem under the carpet, surely it is best that we think seriously about remedying the nonsense in the rules governing privilege. In that way, we shall all know where we stand. When a Member clearly breaks the rules against that background, I shall be the first to say that he or she must be punished.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) feels most relieved to have got all that off his chest.
First, if it had not been for The Sunday Times, the truth would not have come out. Let there be no doubt about that. Secondly, can we be clear what we are talking about? We are talking about conduct by Members—

Mr. Allason: Four Members.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps more than 100 other Members.
Over the years, Members have been prepared to sell the service of using parliamentary procedures to their clients for personal benefit. That has been going on for decades in the House, and that is what the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) stand accused of. Let their punishment be seen in that light.
I have major and deeply-seated concerns about the report of the Privileges Committee. I feel ambiguous about the conclusions that the Committee has arrived at. Paragraph 47 causes me particular concern. It reads:
We see"—
that is, the Committee—
no sustainable distinction between a payment of £1000 for tabling a Parliamentary Question and a consultancy for which the fee is £1000 and the only requirement the tabling of a Parliamentary Question.
The Committee sees "no sustainable distinction" between the two propositions. Nor do I.
I would go further. I see no distinction between a. consultancy for which the fee is £1,000 for tabling one question over a period of a few days, and a consultancy for which the fee is the same £1,000 for tabling a series of questions over a few weeks. There is no distinction to be drawn. In my view, they are both consultancies.
I understand that the hon. Member for Colne Valley protested to the Committee—this was later in his evidence—and said that he did not believe that it was a consultancy when he realised that he had to table only one question. I do not accept that. The relationship was parliamentary consultancy from beginning to end and indistinguishable from other relationships between Members and their clients in which series of questions are being asked.
The Committee, however, has seen a distinction. Paragraph 48 states that, in the first case, the action
fell short of the standards the House is entitled to expect of its Members, and that the House should take appropriate action to mark this view.
That is in the case of one question for £1,000. When it comes to the issue of a number of questions for £1,000, the Committee fails to take a position and says, in effect, that it may well return to the matter later.
The Committee had a duty to consider consultancy in its widest context before it drew the conclusions that it did in the case of the hon. Members for Colne Valley and

for Bosworth. There is a simple reason for its failure to consider the wider issue of consultancy. From the inception of the inquiry, when the Privileges Committee was set up to examine the entire affair, the Committee was riddled or laden down with Members with commercial interests.
Their remit was to protect consultancies. They set out with a strategic aim, which was to isolate two Members, make out that what they did was not consultancy and somehow preserve the position of Members engaged in consultancy and doing precisely the same thing. That was an unacceptable way in which to proceed. I feel that the hon. Members for Colne Valley and for Bosworth must receive some form of punishment, but I shall not enter the Division Lobby.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I have heard enough this afternoon to confirm the belief with which I came into the Chamber—that the process that we have followed in investigating these complaints is entirely wrong.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am now required under the Standing Order to put the Question on the amendments. We come first of all to amendment (b).

Mr. Winnick: I withdraw the amendment.

Madam Speaker: Amendments (c), (d), (e) and (f) are not moved.

It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [19 April].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House—

(i) approves the First Report from the Committee of Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 351);'
(ii) considers that, having regard to the conclusions of the Committee in respect of the honourable Member for Colne Valley, the conduct of the honourable Member fell below the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members, and therefore formally reprimands him for his actions; and suspends him from the service of the House for ten sitting days, with suspension of his salary as a Member for the same period and
(iii) considers that, having regard to the conclusions of the Committee in respect of the honourable Member for Bosworth, the conduct of the honourable Member fell below the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members, and therefore formally reprimands him for his actions; and suspends him from the service of the House for twenty sitting days, with suspension of his salary as a Member for the same period.

Select Committees

[Relevant document: the First Special Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (HC 288).]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That if any select committee, or sub-committee thereof, considers that the presence at a meeting, or part of a meeting, of that committee to which the public are not admitted of any specified Member of the House not nominated to that committee would obstruct the business of the committee, it shall have power to direct such Member to withdraw forthwith; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such instructions as he may receive from the chairman of the committee in pursuance of this Order.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
As matters stand at the moment, any Member of the House has a right to be present at meetings of a Select Committee of which he or she is not a member, even if the Committee is meeting in private. "Erskine May" tells us that Members usually leave if asked to do so, and it says that they
ought, on the grounds of established usage and courtesy to the committee, immediately to retire when the committee is about to deliberate".
But if they refuse to go, the Committee has no powers to make them, although it can ask the House to take action.
A difficulty of that kind arose earlier this year in the Select Committee on Members' Interests. On 7 February, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) attended a private meeting of the Committee. As the Committee proceeded to consideration of the draft report, the hon. Gentleman attempted to address the Committee. Although the hon. Gentleman was strictly within his rights in attending, it was clearly not appropriate for him, or consistent with the advice in "Erskine May", I would judge, to seek to interfere directly with the Committee's proceedings. The Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who, for health reasons, has apologised to the House for the fact that he is unable to be here this evening, asked him to leave, but he refused. The Committee then adjourned.
On 7 March, the hon. Member for Workington again attended a private meeting of the Committee, and again refused to leave when asked to do so. The Committee then reported to the House, seeking from the House the power to exclude the hon. Gentleman from its future private meetings.
In considering how to advise the House on how it might deal with that request, it seemed to me sensible to consider responding by introducing a general provision to cover such circumstances, rather than simply to propose an ad hoc resolution directed at one hon. Member in relation to one Select Committee. Accordingly, after consultation with the Chairmen of the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee, and through the usual channels, I have tabled the motion before the House.
The motion provides that any Select Committee that finds that its business is being obstructed in such a way by a Member who is not a member of the Committee would have the power to direct that Member to withdraw from a private meeting and, if necessary, to call on the Serjeant at Arms to enforce any such direction. It applies

both to deliberative meetings, which Select Committees are required by the rules of the House to conduct in private, and also to meetings at which a Committee has decided to take oral evidence in private.
There are two things that I should emphasise. First, this is permissive, not mandatory. Non-members of Committees will still be able to attend Committees' private meetings if the Committee does not regard them as obstructing its proceedings, and their rights to attend meetings at which evidence is given in public—that is to say meetings where the public in the more general sense are allowed in—are not affected in any way by the terms of the motion.
The second point that I wish to emphasise is that that power is not a dictatorial power vested in the Chairman of the Committee acting alone, but in the Committee as a whole. No Member could be asked to leave a private meeting unless the Committee had first discussed the matter and decided that, in the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for him or her to remain in the Room.
This matter needs to be resolved, so that the Select Committee on Members' Interests can make progress with its current inquiry.
But I commend the motion to the House not only on that basis, but because I think it represents a sensible power to be available to all Select Committees to ensure that their work, which the House rightly values highly, can proceed as the House would wish.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I make it clear in opening my remarks this evening that I do not intend to breach the privileges of the Select Committee on Members' Interest in any way by saying anything about evidence that is being given to it. I say that, Madam Speaker, to put at rest your mind and the minds of the Clerks of the House in so far as they might feel that I would be inclined to breach that principle. I do not intend to do that. I intend to speak to the motion and, if necessary, to call on the precedents of earlier debates, not only in this century but in the previous century, to justify what I am doing.
I stand accused of disrupting the Select Committee on Members' Interests. The motion would give a Committee the power to direct a Member who disrupted or obstructed the business of a Committee to withdraw. I will argue—indeed I do argue—that a Committee should not be given that power, and that the Floor of the House must crucially remain the forum for appeal for a Member who feels that a Committee is conducting its affairs contrary to the interests of Parliament.
Let me give the House an example of a Committee which, by its conduct, is failing to carry out the remit set by resolution from the Floor of the House of Commons—the Select Committee on Members' Interests. My view is that its proceedings are an abuse of Parliament, and in the way in which I acted I have been able—and will be able—to draw attention to its deficiencies. There is no other proceeding in the House that allows a Member to do this. I can ask a question: that is not a debate. I can apply for an Adjournment debate; I have no guarantee that I will be called, because I may not be selected or may not come up in the ballot. I can apply for the ballot for motions—I have no right to win the ballot. I have no right to catch


your eye, Madam Speaker, in any debate, and no right of laying down, other than through the process of ballot, a motion that is debatable in this place.
If hon. Members think about what I am saying, it is the only proceeding open to me as a Member of the House of Commons to initiate a debate of this nature. Let me use the Select Committee on Members' Interests as an example. Its members cannot do what I am doing, because, being members of that Committee, they cannot reveal what is, in effect, unreported evidence to the House. They cannot comment publicly on its proceedings. I can, if I find out, by whatever means.
Indeed, in this case I was able to read about it in The Guardian. They have no rights to do what I am doing. My view is that any Member of the House of Commons who believes that the proceedings of a Committee of the House are being abused has a responsibility to use proceedings to draw the wider attention of Parliament to what is happening, as indeed I would argue is happening in that Committee. This is the only procedure that I know can be used.
Let me be more specific. There are two Committees of the House of Commons that are, effectively, quasi-judicial—the Privileges Committee and the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I heard, during the debate that took place on the report into John Browne, some eloquent speeches by Conservative Members of the House, arguing that the proceedings were so judicial that they required a different approach by Westminster. So I think that we would generally concede that they are quasi-judicial.
What happens if a Government Whip—a Minister of the Crown—is placed on that Committee? Does it inspire confidence in the public to know that that Committee is adjudicating on matters that are quasi-judicial and yet can be subject to the influence of a Whip—the person who fixes the pairings, and may arrange foreign delegations; the person who, perhaps, allows a Member to go off and visit his or her family, and who may even arrange a promotion? I believe that, if a Whip's eye is on the proceedings of a Committee, it will influence the way in which the Committee works.
If members of such a Committee can say nothing—if the only way in which we can ensure that the matters that we are discussing are drawn to the attention of Parliament as a whole is for someone like myself to use the procedures of the House to that end—so be it. That is one reason for my actions; I shall give others shortly.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is difficult for a Committee of the House ever to satisfy the House—and, in particular, the public—that it is judging issues of credibility fairly? Does not the judgment of credibility itself lose all credence in the public mind if a Whip is on the Committee, influencing the way in which members of his party vote on whether a Member of Parliament should be believed or not?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. and learned Gentleman has encapsulated my argument in fewer sentences than I have used. That argument concerns the Committee's credibility in the eyes of the wider public and, indeed, Parliament.
That is the first abuse that, in my view, requires protest: in that context, this forum is essential for the identification of a deficiency. The second, however, is far more

important, and one in which I would expect parliamentarians to take a particular interest. I refer to the relationship between a Committee of the House of Commons and a court of law.
We know that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is bringing a libel action against The Guardian, and I know that, subject to the rules of the House, members of the Committee cannot speak about these matters outside the Committee. What happens if, during that Committee's proceedings, the fact that a libel action may be brought by an hon. Member—the subject of a complaint—begins to interfere with the Committee's judgments and the way in which it conducts its inquiry? What happens if the Committee decides, in its wisdom, that it is not prepared to address a particular subject because it feels that that might prejudice—I use the term advisedly—action that may or may not subsequently arise in a court of law?
That is precisely what is happening in the Select Committee on Members' Interests. If members of that Committee are not free to speak on such matters, who will speak—except people like me, who are prepared to take on the House's procedures to bring Parliament's attention to what we consider a deficiency?
I put it to the House that the timing of the inquiries—I stress that the word is plural—by the Committee is being determined by a civil action in the courts. I ask hon. Members to think of the implications. Let us suppose that someone's action—whatever it might be—had to be referred, by way of complaint, to either the Privileges Committee or the Select Committee on Members' Interests; the Member involved might say, "Ah: if the Committee will have the probability of a libel action in mind, perhaps I"—that is, the person about whom the complaint is being made—"should bring a libel action in the courts, knowing that it may be delayed for two or three years."
That is a way of effectively destroying Parliament's right to debate issues and carry out full inquiries, and that is what I object to. That is why I say that we must have the right to protest on the Floor of the House: Committee members cannot speak about the matters to which I am referring now.
The libel action that I mentioned is not even listed, and may never be listed. I understand that there are some judgments that have a bearing on whether it will be listed. My hon. Friends cannot refer to the matter, but I can, because of the procedure that I have used. I refer to Burdett v. Abbott in 1811 and Stockdale v. Hansard in 1839. The jurisdiction of the Houses over their Members—their right to impose discipline within their walls—is absolute and exclusive.
It is possible that, if someone faced a libel action brought by a Member of Parliament when the House was dealing with a complaint, it could be argued in a court of law that the matter must be dealt with in Parliament rather than the courts, and the Member concerned might well have to petition Parliament before he could deal with the issues with which he wished to deal in court. My argument is that the Committee is being manipulated by proceedings in a court of law, in a way to which my hon. Friends cannot refer. I am using the only procedure open to me in order to refer to it.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point about the relationship between


a Select Committee and courts of law, but may I return him to his first point? He referred to Whips sitting in on Select Committees. Surely it is accurate to say that—as my hon. Friend suggested—when a Government Whip is involved he is, in practice, a Minister of the Crown. Moreover, he is a paid Minister of the Crown: he is paid to do the work of the Executive, which we accept for reasonable purposes as individuals sitting in the Chamber. Is it not a practice, however, for no Minister to be a member of a Select Committee, and is that not an even more powerful argument for resisting the incursion of the Executive on the legislature?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I must dissent slightly from my hon. Friend's comments. There are Committees to which there have been Government appointments, but I am talking about quasi-judicial Committees—special Committees.
Another abuse requires protest. It, too, is linked with the libel trial. To what extent should a libel trial determine who gives evidence to a Committee? If Mr. Al-Fayed, Mr. Greer and the hon. Member for Tatton do not give evidence to that Committee because of the possibility of a subsequent libel trial, I would argue that Parliament's proceedings are being interfered with. But my hon. Friends can say nothing to the Committee, because they are locked in by an oath of secrecy and confidentiality—which, I must say, I have always supported in a different context involving non-reporting of proceedings.

Sir Terence Higgins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about Whips on Committees, and have some sympathy with his view about the relationship between Committees of the House and outside judicial proceedings. I may not have followed the hon. Gentleman closely enough, but I do not understand what parliamentary procedures he seeks to invoke to put matters right. Does he argue that he has the right to disrupt Committees to bring these issues to the attention of the House?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am speaking against the motion. The Leader of the House has tabled a motion that would give the Chair power to exclude those who wished to protest about what goes in Select Committees, when it is known that members of those Committees can say nothing because they are bound by an oath of secrecy and a principle of not speaking on unreported evidence.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He has just said that a problem arises if the individual is bringing a case of defamation, or of libel as he termed it, against someone or a newspaper, as that conflicted with the interests of this place in so far as the Committee could not hear evidence from those people. Surely he must be careful that the individual, by being a Member of Parliament, has no fewer rights to defend himself or herself in a court of law if that is their chosen venue.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has not quite grasped what I have said. I am not saying that those things conflict, but that Committee members have decided that they are prepared to give the court action precedence. That is interfering with their judgment on the way in which the Committee should proceed.
Protest should take place on the basis of another argument. It relates to the way in which the Committee has been taking evidence. We know that a libel trial is going on outside. We find that when Peter Preston, the editor of The Guardian, was giving evidence to the Committee, the hon. Member for Tatton was present in the room to hear the evidence. However, when the hon. Gentleman submits his evidence to the Committee, whether it be oral or written, The Guardian editor is not allowed access to that evidence.
The Committee, therefore, is being used as a sort of discovery forum where a Member can discover the case of The Guardian, but The Guardian cannot discover the case of the hon. Member for Tatton. It seems to be a very unlevel playing field, if I might use that term. I object to the fact that the Committee's proceedings are being used in a way that favours one party in his action, in the event that it were to take place in a court of law.
Another abuse certainly requires protest. It is one that should be close to your heart, Madam Speaker. When a Committee leaks, there is normally a leak inquiry. We know for a fact that the Committee has been leaking like a sieve because, in early March, The Guardian published an article that, I understand, was based on the Committee's draft report. The article stated: "Hamilton breached MPs rules".
Who objected? Did the Committee convene to consider that leak? Whenever I have been on a Committee where a leak has occurred—thankfully, over the years, there have been few—normally we have had a leak inquiry. If I remember rightly, a leak happened only once when I was on the Public Accounts Committee, whose Chairman is present, and we went to Liaison Committee. A discussion had to take place in the Liaison Committee about what action would be taken, yet the Select Committee on Members' Interests, for whatever reason—I shall come to it in a minute—is not prepared to ask for a leak inquiry.
I shall tell hon. Members why no request for a leak inquiry has been made. It is simple. No inquiry has been requested because that Committee is leaking like a sieve through the Tory Whips Office. That is where the leaks are coming from. A Committee member is in the Whips Office. Furthermore, everything that happens in the Committee is going not only into the Tory Whips Office, but to the hon. Member for Tatton, who knows chapter and verse what is happening in the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
I challenge anyone on the Government Bench to deny what I am saying. They know the truth. They know that, if they come to the Dispatch Box and deny what I am saying, it is contempt of the House. It is contempt deliberately to mislead Parliament. The hon. Member for Tatton knows in detail what is happening during proceedings in that Committee, which is discredited.

Mr. James Clappison: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has strong views on the matter, but, in effect, he is complaining about the procedures of the House. Is not obstructing that Committee the wrong way to complain about those procedures? May I give the hon. Gentleman one example of where he is wrong? He has complained about one of the Committee members. He probably knows full well that a procedure exists in the House for appointing Committee members. When that


hon. Member was appointed, neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else objected to that Member's inclusion on the Committee.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is obviously a time for honesty. My hon. Friends will be surprised by what I am going to say. The hon. Gentleman may remember that, last year, an argument took place in the House about the conduct of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). After I had objected to every Select Committee appointment for four months, I did a deal with the Tory Whips—I admit it. I agreed that I would not object to any more Members being appointed to any Select Committee.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has required me to breach a confidence. He presses me across the Floor. He is a Conservative Member. I did a deal saying that I would not object, and, of course, the nomination went through. I kept my side of the bargain—I did not object—but Ministers of the Crown should have known that it was improper to appoint a Minister to that Committee. They must have realised that that would lead to an argument in the House.
Some people are sceptical about the reason why Ministers put that Whip on the Committee. It might be that, at that time, they knew that an argument would take place about the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). I will not go into that today. They will certainly have known about the complaint about the hon. Member for Tatton. They may have foreseen that a number of complaints would be considered by that Committee over a period of months, which would be highly embarrassing, and that they needed the services of a Whip to ensure that the Whips Office was kept informed of what was going on in the Committee.
The hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) smiles, but I ask her rise to her feet and challenge anything that I have said. She has been a member of the Committee for 10 long years, nine of them with me. I know her well on these matters. Normally, she would protest. Please protest.

Dame Peggy Fenner: The hon. Gentleman has asked me to intervene and I am nothing if not obedient. I know him to be a man who feels strongly about things. May I take up one point that he has made? My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was sitting in at the deliberations, but, as things are at present, he was entitled to. Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman, who is a great constitutionalist, that he thinks that we should not allow Members to sit in? We should allow them to do so.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Lady makes my case for me. If she and her hon. Friends had the libel action in mind in determining the Committee's proceedings, she should not have allowed the hon. Member for Tatton to sit in on Mr. Preston's evidence as she would be destabilising the playing field, or it would not be level in terms of the information made available. It is she and her colleagues who would introduce the element of libel action.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee has its authority as a result of the resolution of this place, that it is therefore arrogant of him to say that its decisions, which are made with that authority, are wrong, and that he is entitled just to walk into the Committee and speak in breach of all the

rules? What does that say about this place's powers and the Committee's authority? Is he not breaching it through arrogance?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend is a searcher for the truth.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I thank my hon. Friend. To some extent, the hon. Gentleman is correct. What I have done might be perceived to be arrogant, but I put the question back to the hon. Gentleman: what alternative did I have to draw attention to all those undeniable deficiencies?

Mr. Terry Lewis: May I try to clear up the question of Peter Preston's evidence? It should be set against the background of the four principal players in the whole inquiry. The whole tenor of the Committee changed as soon as the Whip was appointed to the Committee and walked in part of the way through the inquiry. We were left in a position where discipline was imposed and three of the four principals were excluded from the Committee's examination. I know of no Select Committee which was to examine people which examined one person and excluded three.
When Peter Preston came, his case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, was prejudiced because the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) exercised his right, as a Member of the House, to sit in on that investigation and inquiry and to take notes. To my mind, that is unacceptable. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington on raising this matter for debate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is unacceptable only because a majority of the members of the Committee were prepared to have the possibility of a libel action in mind when they were deliberating on the pace of proceedings. It is clear that, to begin with, the delay of six weeks since my alleged sin was committed was very convenient for the Government. I understand that the Whips were crowing. They said, "We may well get this case listed before we can get on to the second part of the inquiry." I do not want to go into the detail of those allegations, but many would argue that they should have been dealt with in the first part—

Mr. Bill Etherington: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, but we must not deal with the detail of the allegations.

Mr. Etherington: If I go wrong, I am sure that you will put me right, Madam Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware that the libel action was well known about before Peter Preston was called? It had been agreed that witnesses would be called. Only after Peter Preston had given his evidence, which was heard by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), did the Conservative majority decide to hear no more evidence.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We are learning something new by the minute. If that is the case, the Committee is discredited and what I did was absolutely right. It means that the great British public cannot rely on a parliamentary Committee to be objective when it sits down to adjudicate on matters of that nature. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington)


harden my resolve and my feeling that what I have done is right, even though it might be described as arrogant by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald).
I have used the only procedure available to me in the House of Commons to raise the issue. There is no other way and that is why the motion is wrong. It is ill-conceived because it means that, if such things happen again in future and members of a Committee are constrained in respect of what they can say in public because of issues of privilege and contempt of the House, no one will be able to do what I had the right to do and that is to get up today and reveal what is happening. I did that in the public interest.
The Leader of the House is today closing down the public interest. He is closing down the opportunity for debate. He is taking away the right to protest. The right that I have used is not being abused. It has been used very rarely over the years. It was used once in 1991; once in 1994; once in 1989; once in 1982; once in 1974; once in 1952; once in 1827 and once in 1849. The point is that the procedure has been used very rarely over the years. However, when it has been used, it has been used to defend the interests of Parliament.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I should like to return to the motion, which relates to procedures in Select Committees, not to the detail of the procedure that has been partly completed in one Select Committee. The time to discuss the behaviour of a Committee and the way in which it called evidence and the evidence that it published is when the evidence has been completed and is published for the House. The minutes of the Committee are published for the House, as are the recommendations. That would be the normal procedure. However, those of us on the Select Committee on Members' Interests faced a situation that became quite intolerable.
At this point, I must stress that I am not usurping the role of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. He is indisposed and I am not seeking to speak for him or to take on his mantle. The important feature of this debate is that we should make it possible for a Select Committee that was given direct and clear instructions by the House to continue and complete the work that it was authorised to begin.
It is entirely improper for there to be discussion outside the Committee on matters discussed by the Committee before the Committee has had a chance to reach a conclusion. It is wrong to suggest that the Committee has been behaving other than according to the normal rules that apply to Select Committees of this House. It has been meticulous in its respect for the rights of Opposition Members and it was courteous when it was interrupted, not once, but twice.
It was explained to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who interrupted the Committee, that the matter he raised was not one for the Committee because the Committee does not decide its own composition. The House decides who shall sit on a Committee. If any hon. Member has the slightest objection about a nomination, that protest should be made when such a nomination appears on the Order Paper, when there is an opportunity to vote on the matter.
If hon. Members do not read the Order Paper, that is not the fault of the Committee or a fault of the proceedings of this House; it is a lack of diligence. If someone wishes to accept that he or she lacked diligence, that is a matter for that person. The issue of who should be a member of a Select Committee is not the issue before us tonight, and who interrupted the Select Committee on Members' Interests is not of particular importance.
The hon. Member for Workington is overweening in his suggestion of his own significance in this matter. The matter that he wanted to raise was raised in the wrong place. He was in the wrong place and he was discourteous. Until that time, it had been assumed that, if an hon. Member wished to attend a Select Committee meeting, particularly a Select Committee of the nature of the Select Committee. on Members' Interests, he would do so. An hon. Member was not expected to interrupt such a Committee.
I have been a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests for as long as any serving Member. I cannot remember the Committee being interrupted in that way. However, had such an interruption occurred, I would have assumed—and I believe that most hon. Members from all parties would have done so too—that the Chairman would request the hon. Member to withdraw. If the Chairman had asked the hon Member to withdraw, I assume that he or she would have done so. That may not have been a well-founded assumption, but that is what I assumed.
However, once it has been found possible to stop a Select Committee deliberating, what prospects have been opened up if we do not take firm action immediately? Any Member of the House who decides that he does not like what a Select Committee is doing and who thinks that there may be some party political or personal advantage to be gained can simply disrupt the Committee in the knowledge that it will take some time to bring the matter to the Floor of the House.
One person, whose name has been referred to in the debate, is a victim of the tactics of the hon. Member for Workington—my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton).

Mr. Lewis: Come on.

Mr. Griffiths: I will certainly come on, and say that justice should be done as swiftly as possible. I do not reveal secrets from the Select Committee, except to say that we have made progress; we are moving towards a decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton has a right to know the decision of the Committee at the earliest possible moment.
The result of the two interventions by the hon. Member for Workington has been simply that the Committee has not been able to sit. It has not been able to listen to the comments of his hon. Friends who, on occasion, have had my support in that Committee. [Interruption.] Opposition Members have never found me taking a purely party political line, and I object to the suggestion that that might be so.

Ms Angela Eagle: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about his conduct. As he is so worried about the delay, does he agree that it is disgraceful that we have had to wait six weeks since my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) came into our Committee proceedings to have this debate? In the


past, such matters were always dealt with on the same day or the day after. Will the hon. Gentleman admit that that is the fault of the Leader of the House?

Mr. Griffiths: I certainly regret that there was a delay. Had the hon. Member for Workington made his protest on the one occasion and then left the matter at that point, the Committee would have met again the following week. It would then have proceeded to deal with the matter in hand. But the hon. Gentleman repeated the interruption, and that meant that it was not possible for the Committee to continue its work.
As for the suggestion that there is some division between the two parties on the Select Committee—which I resent—I am sure that many hon. Members will recall that, on two occasions, I pressed my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for an early debate. I also pressed that he should initiate the debate on a substantive motion, which would have dealt with the impasse that had arisen.
I believe that the Select Committee on Members' Interests has behaved properly. Individual members of that Committee have also behaved properly according to their consciences. That has always been so on the Committee. I do not recall any breaches at any time in this Parliament or previously.
I do not want to delay the discussion. I simply ask that we consider the needs of Select Committees to carry out the remit of the House. They need the opportunity to discuss matters privately on occasions, and to discuss matters with care. The contributions of individual hon. Members should be equal, regardless of their party or their length of service. Each person who is properly appointed by this House should be allowed to express his view.

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee has become moribund for two reasons? First, the libel action has stopped progress in the Committee. As the hon. Gentleman knows, one evening the Committee sat from 6 pm to 9 pm. We did much work, but since the libel action was initiated that work has stopped. Secondly, in respect of a Minister being appointed to the Committee, hon. Members objected at earlier meetings, not later.
Those two matters are of great concern to certain members of the Committee. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been very co-operative with the Chairman of the Committee and has been trying to behave in a non-partisan way, but the Committee is making no progress for those two reasons.

Mr. Griffiths: Those matters can be resolved within the Committee when it is permitted to meet and to carry on its discussions. It can decide its own procedures. It will report its conclusions and the minutes of the discussions will be made available. There will be no secrecy about what happened and when. Any evidence that is called will be reported fully to this House and there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter at that point. To call in the jury before the evidence has been heard is grossly unfair to the person who is the subject of consideration by the Select Committee.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: This must be the last time.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: According to The Guardian, in so far as part of a report has been leaked to The

Guardian, the Committee was dealing with a draft report. That being so, is it true that, when that draft report was being considered, members of the Committee had in mind the existence of a potential libel action? Did they have it in mind?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think that the House would expect me to answer a question about what was said in Committee. I would not presume to say what was in the minds of my fellow members of the Committee. All that I know is that the matter was discussed and that we were moving, having taken some evidence, towards the point where we would seek to reach conclusions. That is what was being done.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that we took advice in Committee about the libel case? We were told by the Clerk to the Committee, who had taken advice, that we could proceed to deliberate on all those matters because the case had not been put down. Is that my hon. Friend's understanding? It is certainly mine.

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I had rather hesitated to say what legal advice we were given. Certainly, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who raised the matter earlier, was aware that the Committee was told that it could discuss whatever it wished and that it could proceed, regardless of what was happening outside, until the question of sub judice arose. I would not wish to go beyond that. That was the legal advice that the Committee had; it was available to every member of the Committee. It would be available to any Member of the House who sought legal advice, presumably.
The point tonight is that the Select Committee on Members' Interests needs to complete its discussions. We ask for the protection of the House in carrying out the duty that the House gave us. We need, therefore, the right for our Chairman to exclude any person who seeks to disrupt our proceedings—no one else.
As this matter has been the subject of so much discussion, there is a danger that others may be tempted to follow along the very undesirable path trodden by the hon. Member for Workington. Therefore, it is necessary that all Select Committees have a power in reserve so that it can be used if it becomes entirely necessary. Whenever it is used, of course, it will be used on behalf of the House, and the House will make the decision. The House is the final arbiter. Select Committees are simply the instruments that do their humble best to carry out the duties that are given to them.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution. I do so as the complainant in both complaints made to the Select Committee on Members' Interests in relation to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). In normal circumstances, I would agree with almost everything said by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), who is well known for his independence and for not being a slave to the party Whips. However, extreme circumstances call for extreme actions. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has rightly been driven to extreme actions in this case.
As one of the lawyers in the House, I am used to hearing the courts and lawyers criticised for being slow, indecisive and inefficient. I have to say, as the complainant, that the Select Committee on Members' Interests has been slow, indecisive and inefficient. Even the enormous charm of its Chairman can do nothing to hide those conclusions. The complaints made against the hon. Member for Tatton have not been adjudicated upon; the Committee has delayed for months.
In relation to at least one set of those complaints, there is an issue of credibility, although I shall not go into it on the Floor of the House. It is well known, and it has been expressed in the public domain, that the allegation is denied. Witnesses are available to give evidence about the complaint, and, of course, the hon. Member for Tatton, if he wishes, can give evidence to deny the complaint. The task of the Committee is to adjudicate on who is telling the truth—or so one would have thought. Yet, months after I made the original complaint, not only has neither of the protagonists been called to give evidence before the Committee but the Committee has resisted calling witnesses to give evidence.
If a complaint is made on the basis of an hon. Member being paid cash or vouchers in return for assisting a particular business, and if that allegation is denied, how on earth can anybody inside and outside the House have any confidence in a Committee that does not even have the courage to adjudicate on the issue of who is telling the truth? In this Committee's action we have the very evidence necessary, if it were necessary, to convince the country that the implementation of recommendations made by Lord Nolan's committee that there should be some independent scrutiny of issues of factual credibility is very much needed.
In circumstances such as those under discussion, it would be quite wrong for the House to approve action against the hon. Member for Workington when what he did was to highlight serious shortcomings in Committee procedure. I am not satisfied with the failure of the Select Committee to adjudicate on my complaints. I feel like a litigant left without a solution, a remedy. Surely the House cannot possibly be satisfied with that state of affairs.

Mr. Oliver Heald: This House has entrusted the Select Committee on Members' Interests with its authority. In doing so, I believe that we, as Members of this House, should respect that. We should, in a sense, set a standard. If we invest a Committee with authority, especially an authority which, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) explained, is absolute and exclusive in a certain area, it should be wrong for individual Members, whether they be the hon. Member for Workington or, indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), to say that their judgment is greater than that of the House, greater than that of the Committee, thereby abandoning an essential principle. If one sets up such a Committee, as we have in this House, we should not interfere with its authority.
That principle has been this place for more than 150 years. In 1844, the Speaker observed in a similar issue:

no Member who was not a Member of the Committee had any right to interfere with the proceedings … though he might be present in the room.

Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heald: Not just yet. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall in a minute.
It is important to look at why we have those rules. The manner of the investigation of a Committee of this sort is important. If the investigation is to be judicial, it must be made in an atmosphere that is not sullied by sympathy or prejudice and is not interfered with by individual Members who put their own opinions above those of the Committee and seek to interfere with its business. There is a danger of improper pressure on Committee members if hon. Members attend the Committee's deliberations and make personal attacks on its members, as the hon. Member for Workington has today with reference to a particular Member.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Who?

Mr. Heald: The Government Whip in question.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No.

Mr. Heald: It is certainly a personal attack to say that that Whip was trying to influence the Committee.

Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heald: Not just yet.
It is certainly a personal attack to say that somebody who is there to do his duty on a Committee and who has been placed there by the House is likely to interfere and place undue influence on the Committee's members. There would be very little point in having such Committees—we might just as well go back to having a Committee of the whole House with witnesses brought to the Bar of the House—if all Members were entitled to attend Committees and to interfere in the processes. There must be a remedy.

Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heald: Not just yet.
The only remedy is that which the motion suggests—in fact, the traditional remedy. On other occasions when it has been necessary to exclude a Member from a Committee, a motion has been placed before the whole House and that person has then been told that he must not attend the Committee at the behest of the Chairman. If there is no remedy, such Committees will become meaningless.
It is wrong to say that there have been only a few instances over recent years. In the present climate, many interest groups which are represented—trade unions among them—by hon. Members from all parties, campaign for this, that and the other issue. If it becomes the practice that a Member may attend a Committee that is deliberating on one such issue and interfere with its process, Committees will not be able to do a proper job.

Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heald: Before I give way, I wish to say that it is worth remembering the words of Gladstone, who was involved in the debate in 1844. He said:


great inconvenience would result from investing Members of that House, who were not Members of the Committee, with a recognised authority to appear as advocates…sitting in the Committee, and possessing every authority except that of voting, but taking part in the discussions equally with the Members of the Committee.

Hon. Members: He did not make that point.

Mr. Heald: He made that point. He also said:
to adopt such an arrangement, while it was totally unnecessary as aiming at supplying a defect which did not exist, would be exceedingly mischievous, because it would impair the authority which belonged to the Committee, and would constitute a number of Members of the Committee, who would be swayed by different interests, and must render the tribunal less competent to conduct the proceedings in such a manner as would be conducive to the interests of the public".—[Official Report, 8 March 1844; Vol. 73, c. 724–25.]
The hon. Member for Workington wishes to attend the Committee and to put forward his own point of view on issues that are sub judice, and so on, with the aim of interfering with the views of its members. He also wants to be able to make unfair and unjustified attacks—I believe—on members of the Committee when he did not object to their selection or their election to that Committee. It is all very well and good to say, "Oh, I did a deal with the Whips," but that does not show the sort of campaigning spirit that he seems to be parading today.
The hon. Member for Workington described himself as somebody who could not find a remedy on the Order Paper and could not find a way in which to express his opinions. As a new Member in the House, I have noticed the hon. Gentleman in operation: nobody uses the Order Paper more, nobody is present more often at business questions, during points of order and at all the other opportunities that exist for Members to put a point of view if they wish to do so.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heald: I am going to give way to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) in a moment.
The hon. Member for Workington is known as an operator—somebody who can make decisions and find ways in which to put forward a point of view. He may even wish to attend a debate on the Committee's report—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths). For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that he is an innocent abroad, who cannot find a way in which to put over his point of view, is frankly wrong. Everybody here knows that.

Ms Eagle: We are talking about a particular and rare instance. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest that hon. Members should do if they believe that something is overwhelmingly and utterly wrong with the way in which a Committee is proceeding? If this motion is passed tonight, there will be no way in which to deal with such rare circumstances—ever. This is a very serious issue. I enjoy the hon. Gentleman's light-hearted speeches, but he is missing the point. What would he do if he were on a Committee and unable to speak, but he believed that

something utterly wrong was being allowed to go on and that there would be no way in which to draw the very serious matter to the attention of the House?

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say that I do not accept her premise. There are ample opportunities in this place for campaigners—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What are they?

Mr. Heald: I have already suggested six or seven ways in which Members can make their points of view known, including objecting to the appointment in the first place. There are many opportunities available here.
In the past, there have been occasions on which, because of. their powerful views on a particular issue, Members have been drawn to challenge a Committee and to interfere with its proceedings. In 1849, Bernal Osborne felt so strongly about the Irish Poor Law Committee that he tried to interfere with its deliberations, and was told to go.

Mr. Bill Michie: Which Committee?

Mr. Heald: It was the Irish Poor Law Committee, but there have been numerous examples down the years.
I do not believe that it is right for an individual Member to put his strong views above those of the House. When this place has decided by resolution to give a Committee authority to deal with an issue, it is simply wrong for another Member to be there trying to interfere with the members of the Committee and with its deliberations.

Mr. Streeter: I am greatly enjoying my hon. Friend's argument. Does he agree that the disturbing aspect of the case before us is not simply the fact that the hon. Member for Workington has clearly broken the long-established rules and procedures of the House, but the fact that he has done so solely to pursue his personal agenda? That agenda is not about an issue of national security or a threat to democracy but is designed merely to peddle his personal diet of sleaze, slur and innuendo, and to attack Conservative Members.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that intervention. No doubt the hon. Member for Workington will have heard it.
A more fundamental issue is at stake—the law of Parliament, which has set out those principles for more than 150 years, and which the hon. Member for Workington, aided and abetted by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, now wishes to break and to treat with contempt. That says something about the form of campaign with which they wish to associate themselves.
In the House there are many methods of making a point or pursuing a campaign, and both those Members have used them over the years. I believe that that is the democratic way of doing things. The other way is to ignore the authority of the House, and to be prepared to flout its rules, to be chucked out of the Chamber, to interfere with Committees—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To wave the Mace?

Mr. Heald: I had intended to make another point, which is that all those activities amount to a principle that


we often hear expressed by Opposition Members—that it is justified to break the law for a cause. But there are an awful lot of causes, and if everybody is entitled to say, "I can break the law, because of my cause," we shall end up with anarchy. That principle is a Labour trait. We have seen it applied to the poll tax and to the Members of Parliament who refused to pay it; we have seen it on the picket lines and in many other contexts.
The worrying aspect is the "demo-ism"—the wish to take direct action to establish a form of street cred. The House should have no truck with that. I do not say that we should uphold the institution for the sake of it, but in our earlier debate on the report of the Privileges Committee the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that the issue at stake was the upholding of our constituents' rights. I believe that for that purpose the law of Parliament is important. Once we start breaking that law, there will be no end to it.

Mr. Bill Michie: The motion is narrow, which is a pity, because the feeling in the Committee, and certainly among my hon. Friends, is that a wide-ranging issue of principle is involved. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on having taken action that will at least allow us a debate, even within the narrow terms of the motion.
There is no doubt that the Select Committee is in deadlock, but that has nothing to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington disrupting its proceedings; it stems from the make-up of the Committee itself. That is the problem, and it is a serious one. As has already been said by more than one Member, I am afraid that by its actions so far the Committee has discredited itself.
I sit on two Select Committees, and I tried to take part in the earlier debate on privileges but did not succeed. Comparing my experience on those two Committees, I can tell the House that the level of democracy in the Privileges Committee is years ahead of what happens in the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
Not only has the Committee been discredited by its own make-up but we have been mugged by the rules of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington has made clear, there is no way, shape or form in which we can speak out of turn as members of a Committee committed to sitting in private. We have to rely on other Members to help us out, and that is an unfortunate position to be in.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said that we should leave it to the Committee to make its report, and the House could then debate and deliberate on the issues and the rights and wrongs. That idea is beyond belief, because there is no confidence whatever in the Committee. I not speak not for myself alone but for many members of the Committee who now find themselves in an impossible situation.
How can such a Select Committee be impartial when a Government Whip is sitting there? How can there be an impartial judgment when we called only one witness before the majority on the Committee decided that one witness for one side was enough, and that we should now make a rational judgment? How can that be right?
There are papers before the Committee that—

Mr. Terry Lewis: —have not even been discussed.

Mr. Michie: As my hon. Friend reminds me, those papers have not been discussed and cannot be discussed. "We'll see to that later," it is said, "Let's deal with this issue first. We want a decision now, having heard one witness, all in private. Then we will deal with the other issues."
To my mind, some of the papers before the Select Committee on Members' Interests are more revealing than anything that came out in the previous debate on cash for questions. The two or three Members involved in that affair are in the Endsleigh league compared with what might happen—

Mr. Alex Carlile: They are in the Vauxhall Conference.

Mr. Michie: Yes, those people are in the Vauxhall Conference compared with what might happen if the Committee were allowed to discuss or question some of the evidence before it.
Unfortunately, there are even greater restrictions, because some of that evidence may not even be within the remit of the Committee. Some have asked why we do not let the Privileges Committee deal with it, but unfortunately the rules of the House do not allow that to happen. I have some of them here. I shall not read them all out but, among other things, they say:
It is not possible for Select Committees to exchange unpublished evidence",
although there are certain powers that enable that to happen in some circumstances. Apparently, the only way in which it can be done is for a motion to be brought to the House by a member of the Government. I do not have enough confidence in the Government to think that they would allow even one of their Members to do that. So that is another serious problem.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We need a protest.

Mr. Michie: My hon. Friend is right: we need a protest to ensure that that can happen.
The House should now free Members of Parliament and allow them to make the right investigations as responsible Members and as selected members of the Committee, rather than passing rules to restrict them as the motion would do.
The Nolan committee will respond to the Prime Minister and the House in May. It seems that the Select Committee and the Nolan committee—indeed, the House and the Nolan committee—are going in opposite directions: one, Nolan, is going for more openness and the other, the House, is going for more restrictions. The Select Committee on Members' Interests is battening down the hatches to ensure that information cannot flow, but it is battening down the hatches on a sinking ship.
Nolan is on the horizon, and unless the House gets its act together, Nolan will have to do it for us. The public are demanding more information and more transparency, yet the House—through a Committee with a Whip as a member—is restricting the rights of Members and information. I honestly believe that, unless we change our ways—we must have fewer, not more, restrictions—we


will come to a point where it will not be the Committee that is in disrepute and not looked upon with confidence, but the whole House.

Sir Terence Higgins: I had not intended to speak in this debate, so I shall be extremely brief. I am as anxious as anyone that the Select Committee system should work effectively. If it is not doing so, that must be of concern to the whole House. Equally, I have considerable sympathy for some of the points made by the hon. Member for Woking.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Workington.

Sir Terence Higgins: I am sorry. I have sympathy for the particular point he made on the matter of Whips serving on Select Committees. Having said that, I feel bound to say that a number of Committees of the House—for example, the Committee of Selection—have Labour Whips among their members. I personally have qualms about that, because there is a tendency for the Labour Whip to take rather more of a role in selecting Committee members than is the case with Conservative Whips. There have been previous debates on the matter in which I have expressed similar concerns. It is for the House itself to decide who serves on a Committee, and it will be interesting to see which way the House votes when the matter next comes up.
Having said that, I have considerable sympathy for the point which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made with regard to the position of the Committee on Members' Interests and the Privileges Committee. I have given evidence to the Nolan committee and I believe, in the light of recent experience, that that matter ought to be looked at by Nolan, and I hope that he will make recommendations. The overlap between the Privileges Committee and the Select Committee on Members' Interests creates an unsatisfactory situation, and certainly the time taken by either of the Committees to reach a decision is of concern.
I have served on the Privileges Committee on every occasion recently except the present occasion, and it is my opinion that it is too large to operate expeditiously—not least because of the difficulty in getting all of the members in one place at one time, as so many are senior Members of this House. An appropriate compromise may be to look at the terms of reference of the two Committees, and perhaps have a specific sub-committee which could report to the Privileges Committee on investigations into matters such as the one we debated earlier today.
Having said that, I intervened on the speech of the hon. Member for Workington because I had terrible difficulty in understanding what he was saying. He said that he was using the only procedure available to him to bring the matter to the attention of House. It gradually dawned on me—it had not occurred to me when he started—that he regards having the right to disrupt a Select Committee's work as a procedure of this House. That is intrinsically an absurdity. A Committee is set up by the House, and the hon. Gentleman says that one of the procedures which Members may use is to disrupt the work that this House wishes that Committee to carry out.
I take the point made by the hon. Lady, the Member for Hertfordshire, North. She is a relatively new Member, for whom I have considerable respect.

Ms Eagle: My constituency is Wallasey.

Sir Terence Higgins: I was misinformed.

Mr. Heald: I represent Hertfordshire, North.

Sir Terence Higgins: I apologise. I have respect for my hon. Friend as well.
I respect the contributions which the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has made to a number of debates, and I accept that she feels passionately about this subject. I am bound to say to her that Committees are set up by the House to deliberate on a matter, and their proceedings and deliberations are then published. If there is a problem, the right moment at which to raise it is when the report is brought to the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: But then the deed is done.

Sir Terence Higgins: No, the deed is not done. The matter is then before the House to consider, and the House can decide whether it agrees with the view that the Committee expresses. That is the right way to deal with the matter. To say that individual Members have the right to disrupt the work of a Committee that has been established by the House to carry out that work is intrinsically absurd.
The motion this evening is reasonable. It does not infringe the rights of Select Committees and, far from that, it seems to me wholly to facilitate their work.

Mr. William Ross: As it happens, I am the only Committee member who is not a member of either of the two major parties and, to some extent, I have been a spectator of the private quarrels which seem to go back and forward between the two parties.
Since we are talking about a Committee that has a wide remit to decide the form and content of the Register, we must tread with great care on that narrow ground between what is really in the public interest and what is private business. It became clear to me during the gathering of information on Lloyd's just how easy it is to stray over the line. A great many of those who sat on the Committee at that time would agree that the Lloyd's rules had ramifications that were not immediately apparent when the rules were first drawn up.
The Committee makes recommendations as to changes in the form and content of the register.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman made a long speech, and I have little time. I shall not give way to him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: They are still registering syndicates—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to continue.

Mr. Ross: I will abide by your guidance, Madam Speaker. Frankly, the hon. Member for Workington


(Mr. Campbell-Savours) was not present during all the discussions. If he had been, he might not have made those comments.
The rules of the register change and develop over time. A consequence of that is that things that were formerly not registered now fall within the rules, and those things will certainly fall within the rules in the future as the intention behind the rules becomes more precisely defined. Sometimes the rules are applied in what seems to me as a layman a retrospective manner. The time of clarification of the rules should be the cut-off point for the declarations that Members may have to make.
The financial interests and benefits of Members of this House are treated as a rich hunting ground by the press, and by some Members, and as an opportunity for political mud-slinging. That is true of Members on both sides of the House, if I may say so.
One complaint made by members of the Committee was that there was a Conservative Whip on the Committee. I noticed that, the first or second time that matter was raised, the complaints were confined strictly to the fact that the hon. Gentleman concerned was a Whip. When I pointed out that I was a Whip also, matters developed somewhat, and they have developed considerably further this evening.
It was pointed out that the Conservative Whip would have a power of patronage that was denied to me. [Interruption.] I see the Leader of the House smiling at that, and he knows that that is correct. It may be, however, that during a debate in the House I could say to an Ulster Unionist Member that he would find great favour with his Whip if he went down a particular line. That is not likely to happen, since my right hon. and hon. Friends are strong-minded individuals, but no one objected to my presence on the Committee on the grounds that I was a Whip.
I can only assume that that was because it was understood that when I came through the door of the Committee room, I left my Whip outside the door. I believe that we all should do that, as we are members of a Committee whose reports could have a destructive effect on the integrity, character and personal standing of any individual whose conduct we are investigating. I believe that if everyone behaved in that way, some of what we see and hear might not happen.
We must be able to consider the questions before us in a calm and non-partisan manner, and to reach conclusions that are clearly understood by the House and the public. The behaviour of the hon. Member for Workington was designed deliberately to disrupt the proceedings of the Committee.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is correct.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman agrees. I heard him say earlier that there was a leak of the draft report to The Guardian which occurred in March. However, I understand that the first disruption that he brought about was before that, so any possibility of the Committee carrying out an investigation into that matter was immediately aborted.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was in February.

Mr. Ross: Well, that is all right then. The first disruption was on 7 February, so the time scale is

interesting. The hon. Gentleman's disruption demonstrated a lack of faith in the integrity of Committee members.

Mr. Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to send signals to and receive replies from someone in the Press Gallery who works for The Guardian? Does that not show the real story going on?

Madam Speaker: I cannot see the Press Gallery and had not noticed that signals were being given. If that is the case, it is certainly not in order and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise such a point of order. If that is taking place, it must cease forthwith. Mr. Ross must not be interrupted further.

Mr. Ross: I was bringing my remarks to a conclusion anyway, Madam Speaker, by saying that the behaviour of the hon. Member for Workington demonstrates the need for the motion.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: This has been an interesting and unusual debate. Without wishing to denigrate the debate that preceded it, this debate has probably been more important to the future of the House than the debate on the conduct of hon. Members.
I accept the motion and, if it is put to a vote, I shall vote for it and encourage my hon. Friends to support it. The motion is permissive. The decision would be made not by the Chairman or Chairperson of the Committee but by the Committee itself. It must be based on a reasonable view that the presence of a specified hon. Member, not being a member of the Committee, would obstruct business. To that extent, the motion would not stop any hon. Member attending a meeting of any Select Committee that is held in private to listen to its deliberations and take notes, because that could not be held to be obstruction. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) attended a previous meeting of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and took notes, but nobody held that to be obstruction; therefore, it forms a useful precedent.
I see no case for disrupting Committee procedures, whether they be Select or Standing Committees held in public or in private. Hon. Members can always find a suitably convenient time and place to raise any issue that they want on the Floor of the House. I remember those long distant days when we had a Labour Government—those times will soon return—and, as a humble Back Bencher, I found that I could raise any issue I chose whenever I chose to do so by using the procedures of the House.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I would have had more sympathy for the motion had it referred to the disruptive conduct of a specified hon. Member. Instead, it talks about the presence of an hon. Member. I am concerned that an hon.


Member who attends such a Committee and behaves honourably and courteously could still be put out of the Committee's sittings.

Mr. Rooker: That would be unreasonable if the hon. Member simply attended, listened to the deliberations and took notes. That could not be held to be obstructing the Committee's proceedings.

Mr. Clappison: On the subject of raising matters on the Floor of the House, is the hon. Gentleman aware that, contrary to the impression that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) may have given, the hon. Member for Workington raised exactly the same matters regarding membership of the Committee on the Floor of the House in a point of order last year and was given the answer that he should have raised the matter at the appropriate time by objecting to the motion? We now know that he was busy doing deals.

Mr. Rooker: My view, which is shared by many of my hon. Friends, is that the Select Committee on Members' Interests is a classic example of the failure of self-regulation by a quasi-judicial body in this House. That is one reason why I sincerely hope that the Nolan committee will get to grips with that failure. Self-regulation has been a failure ever since it started. I cannot recall the Committee ever taking a proactive view in making the Members' interests register a serious tool for the House and those outside. We hope, therefore, that the Nolan committee will get to grips with the problem. The House will rue the day that we ignore any recommendations by the Nolan committee on reforming the Members' Interests Select Committee.
As has already been said, Ministers sit on Select Committees. For example, a Treasury Minister is a member of the Public Accounts Select Committee. By convention, Ministers attend only once on appointment, but they receive all the papers. None the less, it is open to them to attend. The Attorney-General is a member of the Privileges Committee. [Interruption.] So, too, is the Leader of the House.
However, whereas Ministers sit on Committees in their departmental capacity, Whips are part of the House's business management and deal with the discipline of party management of their party. They are wholly different animals from departmental Ministers. Anyone can read the rules of the House. Nothing stops the Government placing a departmental Minister on any departmental Select Committee if they choose to do so. Nothing in the rules prevents that. By convention, the Government do not do so but, by convention, they never put Whips on the Members' Interests Select Committee. The matter must therefore be tidied up so that we know which Ministers of the Crown are eligible to serve on investigatory Committees of the House. That serious matter must be dealt with.
I do not wish to go into the details of the incident in question, because the Members' Interests Select Committee has an inquiry under way. I do not know whether it conducts inquiries in tandem, but I have reason to believe that other inquiries are mounting up behind it. On the inquiry that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington disrupted and on which he has allegedly prevented the Committee from making a report to the House because only one witness out of three has been called to give evidence, subject to how that has been

handled, my Front-Bench colleagues and I will seriously consider advising the parliamentary Labour party as a whole to withdraw complete co-operation and participation from that Select Committee if it is clear to us that a legitimate inquiry has not been brought to a satisfactory conclusion because there has been a whitewash. That matter may be overtaken by the Nolan inquiry, but if there is a whitewash—in this case, there are prima facie grounds for believing that there will be—we shall play no part in it.

Mr. Lewis: I am one of those Committee members who, by consensus, has been diligent. I am considering my position because of what has happened over the past several weeks.
My hon. Friend said earlier that hon. Members could raise matters by some device or other on the Floor of the House or elsewhere. Over the past few weeks, all Committee members who have held an alternative view have felt inhibited by our responsible attitude towards privilege and the amount of information that we have in our hands. We are behaving responsibly by not using those devices. Will my hon. Friend take that on board?

Mr. Rooker: I fully accept the constraints under which my hon. Friends have been placed, which is why this difficulty has arisen. If it appears that that Committee has been unable to function because of interference by Government business managers, we shall have no part of it. Only a bent and twisted Government would seek to manipulate investigative Committees of the House.
The Labour Opposition know exactly where we are coming from and how we want to reform the system. That does not mean that we must put up with manipulation of existing procedures. This matter is extremely serious, and, subject to what happens in the Committee and the approval of the motion tonight, we may reach that conclusion. It is not being done in haste, but we consider the matter to be extremely serious and are disturbed by the way in which the Government have behaved.

Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate, as a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I strongly endorse the arguments that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), who serves on the Committee with me, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald).
What the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has done is wrong. I appreciate that he holds strong opinions about the matter, but it must be wrong for any Member of the House to override the procedures of the House and take it on himself to decide the way in which Committees operate. As a result of the hon. Gentleman's behaviour, the Select Committee has been obstructed.
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to respect the privacy of the deliberations of the Select Committee. However, by the end of his speech I had reached the conclusion that we would have had more privacy if we had conducted our proceedings in the middle of Trafalgar square, because he blatantly used his speech as an opportunity to ventilate as much as he could.
Turning to the merits of what the hon. Gentleman says—one does not need to do so for long—he undermined his own case about the membership of the Committee by not taking—

Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clappison: No. I do not have time.
The hon. Member for Workington undermined his own case by not taking advantage of the proceedings—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [19 April].

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 35.

Division No. 133]
[7.40 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Amess, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Arbuthnot, James
Hague, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hargreaves, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Hawkins, Nick


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Hayes, Jerry


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Heald, Oliver


Baldry, Tony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bates, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Booth, Hartley
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Horam, John


Bowis, John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Brandreth, Gyles
Jack, Michael


Bright, Sir Graham
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Burns, Simon
Jones, Roberts B (W Hertfdshr)


Butler, Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Carrington, Matthew
Knight Greg (Derby N)


Clappison, James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lidington, David


Coe, Sebastian
Lightbown, David


Congdon, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Conway, Derek
Luff, Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
MacKay, Andrew


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Maclean, David


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Malone, Gerald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mandelson, Peter


Dover, Den
Mans, Keith


Durant, Sir Anthony
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Merchant, Piers


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Monro, Sir Hector


Evennett, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Faber, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Norris, Steve


Forth, Eric
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Foster, Don (Bath)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Page, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Paice, James


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


French, Douglas
Richards, Rod


Garnier, Edward
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Rooker, Jeff


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)



Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Trend, Michael


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Ward, John


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Nicholas
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whittingdale, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Spring, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sproat, Iain
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. David Willetts.




NOES


Barnes, Harry
Livingstone, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mackinlay, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, D N
MacShane, Denis


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Madden, Max


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pickthall, Colin


Eagle, Ms Angela
Pike, Peter L


Enright, Derek
Rendel, David


Etherington, Bill
Sedgemore, Brian



Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Vaz, Keith


Gerrard, Neil
Wallace, James


Godman, Dr Norman A
Welsh, Andrew


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wicks, Malcolm


Hanson, David
Winnick, David


Hardy, Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Hill, Keith (Streatham)



Hinchliffe, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Terry Lewis and


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Mr. Piara S. Khabra.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That if any select committee, or sub-committee thereof, considers that the presence at a meeting, or part of a meeting, of that committee to which the public are not admitted of any specified Member of the House not nominated to that committee would obstruct the business of the committee, it shall have power to direct such Member to withdraw forthwith; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such instructions as he may receive from the chairman of the committee in pursuance of this Order.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

Health Board Funding (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As you, Madam Speaker, will be aware, after several attempts I have managed to raise on the Adjournment the subject of funding for health boards in Scotland and its implications for the pay of those who work in the national health service. I am pleased to see that, although there is a fairly small number in the Chamber this evening, there are more hon. Members present than is normal for Adjournment debates, which are often attended by only the hon. Member who has the Adjournment and the Minister. I hope that that reflects the genuine interest of everyone present in the implications for pay of those who work in the national health service.
I must declare an interest: I serve on the parliamentary panel of the Royal College of Nursing. I am also in regular contact with the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association and other groups involved in health. But that having been said, I think that I speak as an individual and someone who reflects the views of all our constituents.
All of us, irrespective of our standing in society, our income or where we come from, need the national health service. We must recognise the dedication and commitment of those who work in that organisation. We are all indebted to them for the work that they do. I speak as someone who went through a long illness and appreciated the work done by the nurses and others in the hospital. I am also a daughter with an aged mother who suffers from Alzheimer's disease and I recognise the contribution of the staff to people such as my mother.
In tonight's debate we are talking about the values and principles of the society that we want to see. It is often said that nursing is a vocation, which has somehow become almost a derogatory term. We give those with a vocation a pat on the head and a lump of sugar, but do not, as a society, recognise the commitment that they give to individuals. They are people who carry out tasks that are important to the well-being of those we love and those we want to see cared for. We should look at ourselves, as the House of Commons and as representatives of the public, and ask whether people who take a vocational job should be dismissed as unimportant and not worthy of national recognition.
I have raised the subject in tonight's debate because I have seen what has happened over the past several weeks in the context of the discussion on the pay of nurses, midwives, health visitors and others in the health service. It is essentially a Scottish debate because I have made specific reference to the health boards in Scotland in recognition of the different administrative system in Scotland. But the principles about which I want to speak, and which underpin the debate, are UK-wide. I trust that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will accept that rationale of the comments that I shall make.
A review body report was published on 9 February. It recommended a two-tier approach to salaries. It was the review body's 11th report and it was the first time that the Royal College of Nursing or any other organisation had rejected a review body's report. The reason that the college rejected it was the recommendation of a two-tier approach.
What was being offered was that 1 per cent. of a pay increase would be guaranteed as a national increase. The assumption was that it would be directly funded by the Government. But the reality was that the 1 per cent. was not being directly funded by Government, but had to be met by the trust boards—so many of our organisations are now represented by trust boards. The figure was going to be part of the payments that were to be made by the trust boards.
It is important to remind ourselves of that, because many people thought that the Government were directly funding the 1 per cent. and the trust boards had to find another 2 per cent. or whatever. But the figure was part of the final negotiations on the national health service funding system. Any additional funding had to come from the trusts, along with that 1 per cent.
Many people regard that aspect of the Government's policy as the beginning of an attitude that will lead to local pay negotiations in many professions and many trades where we would expect to have national recognition of the contribution made by those who work in them. If we add to that the fact that the trusts will, in future, theoretically be able to ensure that negotiations relating to conditions of service—such as sick leave, sick pay, annual leave and hours of work—could be included, we realise that national standards are being demeaned. If all aspects of negotiations and discussions of the conditions in which our health service workers operate are put alongside pay levels, we see that, even if they are diluted in one trust, the idea of equality of standards and equality of service delivery has been destroyed once and for all within what we call a national health service.
An editorial in the Nursing Times and Nursing Mirror of 8 to 14 March 1995 states:
We also predict that within one or two years, the national element will have withered away altogether.
Were I to be suddenly afflicted by appendicitis in London or Lossiemouth, I would expect the same standards of treatment to be allocated to me as a member of the national health service. Wherever our nurses, doctors, health visitors and midwives happen to work, we should ensure that they are given equal recognition for the service that they offer us.
In answer to a parliamentary question that I put to the Minister of State on 29 March 1995. he told me that funding to health boards in Scotland had risen in real terms over the past year by 3.9 per cent. and, apparently, the projection for 1995–96 is that it is to rise by 3.6 per cent.
I do not dispute the figures, but they do not represent a standard pattern throughout the health boards in Scotland. In my area, the Grampian health board will receive a funding increase of only 2.66 per cent. How will areas which are receiving an increase of less than 3 per cent. pay their staff the salaries that they seek?


It would cost the Moray health trust £600,000 to pay the 3 per cent. pay increase which the nurses have requested and which I endorse.
The Minister will probably respond by saying that efficiency savings are required within the health service. The efficiency savings target in Scotland this year is 2.75 per cent. or £75 million. A 3 per cent. pay increase across the board for the staff to whom I have referred tonight would cost £23.2 million. When we compare that sum with the efficiency savings target of £75 million, we can see how little it would cost to ensure that our health service workers are paid the salaries that they so obviously deserve.
What does it mean when we talk about efficiency savings within the health service? In reality, it means a reduction in all kinds of services. Services within the NHS have already been pared to the bone. Are we now expected to drain the marrow from those services?
What efficiency savings does the Minister envisage making in Scotland while maintaining the current standard of service delivery? What would happen if health service staff asked to be paid for the overtime they work—overtime that is not recognised at present? Those committed and dedicated staff work that overtime because no nurse, midwife or health visitor will be dictated to by the clock. None of them would walk away from a case because they had already worked an eight-hour day. We must recognise their commitment and their dedication.
Staff turnover among nurses in Scotland continues to rise, and last year it increased from 12 per cent. to 19 per cent. There is also a shortage of student and trainee nurses. Between 1988 and 1992, the number of student nurses in Scotland fell by 35 per cent. Those figures were supplied by the Department of Employment, whose labour force survey also showed that unemployment in the nursing profession is just 1.7 per cent.
Against that background, variations in local pay deals will set nurse against nurse and trust against trust. I represent a rural area where vast distances must be travelled. A local Lobby correspondent recently asked me why nurses in Moray should receive the same pay as nurses in London, when the cost of living is so different. I argue that the dedication of nurses and the care that they provide is equal throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Low wages must not be introduced to the rural areas of Scotland.
The Royal College of Nursing, to which I referred earlier, does not accept that increases in nurses' pay should be self-financing or funded through productivity improvements. Will there be arguments in favour of performance-related pay for nurses? How does one measure the productivity of a nurse, midwife, health visitor or someone working in the area of community care? A broader range of factors must be considered—I return to the issue of principles and values in society—including recruitment and retention, fair pay comparisons, morale and projections for future demand.
The Minister will be aware that, of the 46 trusts in Scotland, only four have made offers so far in the context of pay negotiations. In Greenock—I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is in the Chamber—there has

been an offer of 2.5 per cent. Grampian Health Care in my area has made an offer of 2.83 per cent., but that is conditional upon the acceptance of a trust contract. The Southern general hospital in Glasgow has offered 3 per cent., 1 per cent. of which has unspecified conditions attached. North Ayrshire has offered 3 per cent. with no conditions attached. Only four out of the 46 Scottish trust boards have made offers, two of which are conditional. What conditions are people being asked to accept in fulfilling their duties to society?
By 13 April this year, 127 out of almost 500 trusts had made local pay offers. Of those, 80 per cent. offered an increase of 3 per cent. or more. I think that we must accept that most trusts wish to recognise the level of demand and the merits of the case that has been advanced. Some 75 per cent. of the 3 per cent. minimum offers are seemingly without strings: they are not conditional upon the acceptance of trust contracts, employment or changes to conditions of service, leads or allowances.
The Scottish Office has not issued any guidance to trusts in Scotland about local pay, unless it has done so in the last few hours. It is allowing individual trusts to make their own arrangements at their own pace—which may explain why a relatively small number of offers have been made in Scotland so far. I think that it is unfair and unjust that health service workers do not know what the trusts are prepared to offer.
I contrast that situation with what has happened in England and Wales. Ken Jarrold, the national health service executive and director of human resources, wrote to all trust chief executives in England and Wales on 11 April. He said:
Ministers have expressed concern that there have not been more pay offers".
He continued:
It is very important that all employers give an early indication of their intentions … It would be helpful for staff … to be made aware of the local pay offers being made by employers.
Why has no instruction or advice along those lines been offered to the chief executives and executive and non-executive directors of trusts in Scotland? In responding to the debate tonight, I hope that the Minister will assure me that he intends to offer similar advice to Scottish trusts and that he will clearly endorse the argument for a 3 per cent. pay increase. He must make it clear that the Government recognise the worth of health service staff.
I believe that health service workers would be more interested in the colour of the money that the trusts intend to offer than in the colour of the BMWs which are driven by the administrators and managers who are not involved in service delivery. It is critical in this debate that we argue the case on behalf of the committed and dedicated people to whom many of us owe our lives. We must have a proper sense of values.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on securing this debate on the Adjournment. She has been assiduous in her concern in this area, and she recently secured another Adjournment debate about community care.
I welcome the opportunities that the debate offers, not least because it allows me to acknowledge the valuable work performed not only by nurses, midwives and health visitors, but by all those who work in the national health service in Scotland. I pay tribute to their commitment. A very distinguished hospital, the Western general, is located in my constituency. It is involved with many areas of specialist care and I am full of admiration for the work that is performed there. The Scottish Office fully recognises that fact also.
As the hon. Lady will no doubt be aware, we allocate £4 billion per year to funding the national health service in Scotland. It represents almost one third of the resources available to the Secretary of State for Scotland and provides clear evidence, if such evidence is required, of the importance and the priority that the Government continue to attach to the provision of health care services.
Since 1979, we have increased the annual level of resources available for the NHS in Scotland from £1 billion to today's figure of £4.1 billion. That represents a real-terms growth of more than 53 per cent. and, despite competing financial pressures from other quarters, the Government have continued to honour their 1992 manifesto pledge to a year-on-year increase in the level of real resources committed to the national health service in Scotland.
As I just stated, for the first time, net expenditure on the NHS in Scotland will exceed £4 billion in 1995–96. In broad terms, just over £1 billion will go towards family health services and centrally funded services, but by far the largest element—just over £3 billion—will go to hospital and community health services.
Some £2.5 billion of that £3 billion has been allocated to health boards through a standard and long-accepted weighted capitation formula. In essence, the formula weights individual health board populations for age and sex, relative health care need and geographical differences in the costs of providing services. The aim is to ensure that, across Scotland, there is equal opportunity of access to health care for people at equal risk.
By now, in respect of 1995–96, most of the £2.5 billion allocated to health boards—as purchasers of health care services—will be committed to NHS trusts—as providers—through service contracts. The trusts' contract prices will, of course, include provision for pay together with the trusts' other operating overheads.
On whether health boards—and hence the NHS service as a whole—have sufficient resources to meet possible pay awards, the short answer is yes. The total resources available to health boards through their general allocations and expected cash-releasing efficiencies are, as I have just said, £2.5 billion. That is an increase of just under £130 million or 5.4 per cent. on their 1994–95 provision. Those additional resources are required to meet the cost implications of demographic change, medical advance and, of course, pay and price increases.
The Government's policy is that public sector pay must be met from within efficiency gains.

Mrs. Ewing: I hear all that the Minister is saying in the context of those complex figures, but, basically,

does he believe that throughout Scotland every worker—nurses, midwives or health visitors—should have access to the same pay increase? If that does not happen, how does he intend to cope with the fact that nurse will be set against nurse and trust against trust?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall explain the Government's position exactly. The hon. Lady asked specifically about guidance. The management executive of the NHS in Scotland will issue guidance to the trusts on local pay within the next week and that will encourage the trusts in Scotland to make offers and point out the review body's anticipation that increases will range between 1.5 per cent. and 3 per cent. I shall return to that in more detail in a moment.
Health boards have been set a minimum cash-releasing efficiency target of 2.75 per cent. for 1995–96. That equates to some £70 million, which in itself amounts to just over 4 per cent. of the estimated pay bill for 1994–95. An element of that £70 million will be required to meet demographic change, medical advance and general price increases, but with total additional funds of almost £130 million in 1995–96, health boards have been given sufficient resources and have sufficient flexibility within those resources to budget for and meet all potential cost increases.
I now refer to the actual pay awards for nurses, midwives and health visitors. Recommendations on their pay are made by an independent pay review body, as the hon. Lady appreciates. For 1995–96, the review body recommended a two-tier approach, comprising a 1 per cent. increase in national salary rates and local negotiations on pay and/or conditions.
The Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body recommended that 1 per cent. increase, as I mentioned. The review body also recommended further local negotiations on pay. Both national and local increases are to be effective from 1 April 1995. On local negotiations, the review body did not prescribe an upper limit—and that is most significant—but it expected that in the majority of cases, the outcome of local negotiations plus the 1 per cent. increase in national rates would provide improvements for the staff concerned, totalling between 1.5 and 3 per cent.
Regarding those local negotiations on pay, it is of particular note that Whitley councils, representing all the 40 per cent. of NHS staff not covered by review bodies, have already accepted a provision that enables an element of their pay to be determined locally.
The review body believes that trusts should be able to reach agreements in local negotiations. It did not prescribe an upper limit, but expected that in the majority of cases the outcome of local negotiations plus the 1 per cent. increase would provide improvements totalling between 1.5 and 3 per cent.
It must be made clear that the review body is quite independent. Let me also make it clear that the Scottish Office and the Government hold nurses, midwives and health visitors in the very highest regard. It was largely because of that regard that we set up their independent review body in 1983 and we have accepted its recommendations every year since.
If one went entirely by the coverage of the matter in the media, the impression would be gained that the figures in the recommendations were somewhat arbitrary and that they suddenly emerged in the public domain


from nowhere and without any basis. I am therefore glad of the opportunity to dispel misconceptions and mythologies. The best way of doing it is to draw attention to the facts.
This year, the review body again considered the main issues that had influenced its recommendations in previous years. Those issues are: first, the need to recruit and retain sufficient staff of the right quality in the long term as well as the short term; secondly, the need to maintain their morale and motivation at levels necessary to secure provision of the level and quality of service required; thirdly, the need for nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and the public to feel that the nursing staff had been treated fairly; and fourthly, the need to avoid imposing an unfair burden on the taxpayer. The review body explained that those issues continued to be important to it as indicators of the adequacy of pay levels for nursing staff overall.
Evidence on those issues was submitted to the review body by the Health Departments, including the Scottish Office Home and Health Department. Evidence was also submitted by the staff side of the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council and other individual staff organisations, such as the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Scottish Health Visitors Association and Unison.
For its present report, the review body made a number of visits to hospitals to see the work of staff on whose pay it makes recommendations and to listen to their views on pay issues and related matters.
All those issues, as well as local pay, were carefully considered by the review body before it reached its conclusions and made its recommendations.
We fully accept the review body's recommendations. I regret talk of industrial action, as we all do. It is singularly regrettable that such talk has arisen simply because the Government have again accepted the recommendations of the independent pay review body.
There is nothing unusual in the Government having accepted the recommendations. We have accepted all the previous recommendations, which have resulted, for example, in nurses' pay rising in the past six years by 78 per cent. compared with some 48 per cent. in the private sector and 49 per cent. in the whole economy. Recognition also needs to be given to the fact that in seven of the 11 years since they have had an independent pay review body, nursing staff's pay awards exceeded those for doctors and dentists.
In accepting the current recommendations, the Government recognise that the way forward is through local negotiation. The way for nurses, midwives and health visitors to achieve fair pay increases that reflect their value to the NHS is through local negotiation, not confrontation. At the same time, local pay is a vital part of achieving a more efficient NHS, much better at responding to the needs of patients.

Mrs. Ewing: I think that we all accept the importance of the review body—no one is arguing against its retention—but surely even the Government must recognise that we are talking about the first report out of 11 that has been rejected by serious organisations. That must cause some concern, even on the Treasury Bench.
The Minister mentioned the motivation and morale of staff. I have never found motivation and morale lower. I say that having read speeches that I made in the House in March 1979 in the days of the Labour Government, when there was an argument about whether to establish a review body.
The Minister talks about the need for local negotiation. Is he prepared to say clearly that in no circumstances will local conditions be attached to pay negotiations in future? That is one of the strongest fears within the nursing profession and all the other professions that are involved in the discussion.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot say to the hon. Lady that there will be no variation anywhere within Britain.
The hon. Lady talked about the weighted capitation formula and whether the area that she represents has been properly treated. It has. There is no question of Grampian health board having been unfairly treated or disadvantaged in the 1995–96 allocation round.

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall continue with the point that I was making; the hon. Lady may intervene again in a moment.
In keeping with normal practice, the health board's general cash allocation has been calculated on a weighted capitation formula. In short, the formula determines the board's target share of national resources that are available on the basis of its relative need for funds. That relative need is determined by taking account of the age and sex composition of each board's resident population and, most important, the relative health needs of the population group.
The measurement used for determining health need is the standardised mortality ratio for those under 65 years. That, in effect, acts as a proxy for morbidity by contrasting the number of actual deaths in a board area within that age group with the expected number of deaths. The average standardised mortality rate for Scotland is set at one, and Grampian's rating is 0.82. In other words, the population in Grampian is presumed to be healthier than the national average. That is why the board received not its 10.1 per cent. pro rata share of Scotland's general allocation provision but a target share of 9.36 per cent. Despite that, over the past three years the board has continued to receive an allocation increase above the national average percentage increase for 1995–96. That has been worth almost £500,000.

Mrs. Ewing: I accept that vital factors work in Grampian. Has the Minister, however, or anyone within the Scottish Office, when deciding the allocation of funding, considered referral rates from, for example, West Unit as it was previously called? I know that many general practitioners in the area that I represent have not referred patients to Aberdeen royal infirmary or to Raigmore. They prefer to keep them at home and within travelling distance to monitor them for 24 or 48 hours. That has led to a non-recognition of the additional burden that GPs have taken on in rural areas such as my constituency.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In terms of capitation, the health needs of Moray, considerable as they may be, must properly be taken into account. I shall certainly examine the detailed point that the hon. Lady


has made and write to her. However, if we take the west central belt of Scotland, a part of which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) represents, we see that health needs indicators are higher than in the hon. Lady's constituency. The Scottish Office is properly entitled to take that into account in the allocation. I must stress that allocation is carried out strictly according to formula. It is not done at the discretion of Ministers. The Scottish Office follows the formula that is laid down.
A strong motive in our NHS reforms is that, the nearer to patients decisions are taken, the better they are likely to be. We believe that that also applies to pay. It is our view that responsibility for devising pay arrangements should, like other aspects of management, be delegated wherever possible to those who are responsible for the delivery of services. It is for that reason that the Health Departments submitted evidence to the review body not to recommend an across-the-board increase.
We suggested that, instead, the review body should assist in the introduction of local arrangements by leaving employers with maximum scope for local action. By providing for a degree of local negotiation, the review body has endorsed and encouraged the aim of introducing local pay into the NHS. I hope, therefore, that nurses, midwives and health visitors will participate fully in the local negotiations to secure pay settlements that are both entirely fair to them and affordable to their employers: I stress, both fair and affordable.
I fully expect NHS employers in Scotland to approach the local pay negotiations in a responsible manner. The local pay increase must be seen to be fair. Local pay is not about delivering very low pay awards. That would be rightly regarded by staff and the public as unfair.
Public perception of the pay of nursing staff was one of the matters taken into account by the review body. The issues of fairness and comparability were considered. In doing so, it commented that there is a wider sense in which the pay of nursing staff should be "felt fair" by the community as a whole, as well as by the staff themselves, and that is central to the job that the review body is required to do. The issue was therefore considered by the review body, and that informed its recommendations.
While the local pay increase must be seen as fair, it must also be affordable. This issue was addressed by the review body, which recognised that where some element of pay is determined locally, affordability for pay purposes will also need to relate to the financial circumstances of individual trusts. In these circumstances, affordability will be influenced by trusts' success in negotiating contracts with purchasers, including some outside the NHS, as well as by their ability to control their costs.
How should this matter now be taken forward? At national level, talks are continuing in the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council on an agreement that would promulgate the 1 per cent. increase in national salary rates and facilitate local negotiations on the additional payments.
At local level, the vast majority of NHS trusts in Scotland have concluded their discussions with various NHS purchasers regarding the costs and quality of service that they wish for 1995–96. Trusts in Scotland can now ascertain their income for 1995–96, and I expect them to

engage in local negotiation with bodies representing staff on the implementation of the review body recommendations. The outcome of the negotiations in any particular trust will be a matter for that trust and its respective staff interests.
I appreciate that there are anxieties and fears, which is only natural when there are changes to pay determination mechanisms. Having to negotiate locally on an element of pay is a challenge, but it should also be regarded as an opportunity.
Concern has been expressed in some quarters about the readiness of the service to take on the job of local pay bargaining. The review body explained that it understood and had some sympathy with that concern. It concluded, however, that the necessary confidence and expertise will be fully developed across the NHS only when the parties are confronted by the actual process of making local pay arrangements. That is what the service, management and staff representatives alike now need to do.
Implicit in all that I have said is that pay is not an end in itself. That is well known to all those who work in the NHS in Scotland, where the objective is to deliver the highest standard of patient care.

Mrs. Ewing: I shall not reopen the argument about the establishment of trusts—that argument is in the past. Is the Minister convinced that the trusts, which are essentially in their infancy, are capable of negotiating and dealing with issues such as pay and conditions for their staff?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I am. I should take the opportunity to say that in terms of funding generally in Scotland, health expenditure is 23 per cent. higher per capita in Scotland than in England. That is significant. The boards in Scotland have substantial resources and I would expect them to deliver awards that are both fair and affordable taking all the relevant circumstances into account.
This has been a useful debate and it has been good that so many hon. Members from Scotland have attended, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who is keenly interested in the matter, and the hon. Members for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow.
I should like to make several points to draw the strands of the debate together. Since 1979, resources available to the NHS in Scotland have grown from £1 billion to £4.1 billion. Since 1979, resources within those figures available to the hospital and community health service in Scotland have increased from £801 million to £3,146 million. Between 1979 and 1994, overall staffing in the NHS increased by 4.5 per cent. However, in that period, the nursing work force increased by more than 20 per cent., and the qualified nursing work force by 34 per cent.

Mrs. Ewing: I want the Minister to pin carefully the argument that Ministers propound so often—that somehow or other the Scottish national health service is subsidised and given additional funding. Does he agree that, in the five years since 1986, in England and Wales additional funding has been 18.2 per cent., whereas in Scotland it has been only 14.6 per cent.?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The settlement in England this year, of 1 per cent., is greater than that in Scotland, which is 0.35 per cent. Scotland has had a


substantial increase and, as I have mentioned, health expenditure per head is 23 per cent. higher than in England. The hon. Lady would not wish us to be put on the same basis as England, because health expenditure in Scotland would be cut to an extent that she would hardly have dreamed possible.
Before making its current recommendations, the nurses' review body considered evidence from both staff organisations and management. We have implemented in full all the recommendations of the nurses' review body

since its inception. This has contributed to an increase in nurses' salaries of 53 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Resources are available to meet the increases recommended by the review body.
Taken together, those points surely demonstrate our continuing commitment to the provision of very high-quality NHS health care in Scotland, and they recognise the contribution made to this by the broad group of nursing staff.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Nine o'clock.